Outcomes of Human Leukocyte Antigen–Matched Sibling Donor Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation in Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia: Myeloablative Versus Reduced-Intensity Conditioning Regimens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) can cure some chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) subjects. This study compared outcomes of myeloablative (MA) and reduced-intensity conditioning (RIC) transplants from HLA-matched sibling donors (MSD) for CLL. From 1995 to 2007, information regarding 297 CLL subjects was reported to the Center of International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research; of these, 163 underwent MA and 134 underwent RIC MSD HCT. The MA subjects underwent transplantation less often after 2000 and less commonly received antithymocyte globulin (4% versus 13%, P = .004) or prior antibody therapy (14% versus 53%; P < .001). RIC was associated with a greater likelihood of platelet recovery and less grade 2 to 4 acute graft-versus-host disease compared with MA conditioning. One- and 5-year treatment-related mortality (TRM) were 24% (95% confidence intervals [CI], 16% to 33%) versus 37% (95% CI, 30% to 45%; P = .023), and 40% (95% CI, 29% to 51%) versus 54% (95% CI, 46% to 62%; P = .036), respectively, and the relapse/progression rates at 1 and 5 years were 21% (95% CI, 14% to 29%) versus 10% (95% CI, 6% to 15%; P = .020), and 35% (95% CI, 26% to 46%) versus 17% (95% CI, 12% to 24%; P = .003), respectively. MA conditioning was associated with better progression-free (PFS) (relative risk, .60; 95% CI, .37 to .97; P = .038) and 3-year survival in transplantations before 2001, but for subsequent years, RIC was associated with better PFS and survival (relative risk, 1.49 [95% CI, .92 to 2.42]; P = .10; and relative risk, 1.86 [95% CI, 1.11 to 3.13]; P = .019). Pretransplantation disease status was the most important predictor of relapse (P = .003) and PFS (P = .0007) for both forms of transplantation conditioning. MA and RIC MSD transplantations are effective for CLL. Future strategies to decrease TRM and reduce relapses are warranted.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".