Partially Matched, Nonmyeloablative Allogeneic Transplantation: Clinical Outcomes and Immune Reconstitution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Allogeneic transplantation is typically limited to younger patients having a matched donor. To allow a donor to be found for nearly all patients, we have used a nonmyeloablative conditioning regimen in conjunction with stem cells from a related donor with one fully mismatched HLA haplotype. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and alemtuzumab were used as the preparatory regimen. Additional graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis included mycophenolate with or without cyclosporine. Patients with persistence of disease had a donor lymphocyte boost planned. Toxicities, engraftment, response, survival, and immune recovery are reported. RESULTS: Forty-nine patients with hematologic malignancies or marrow failure and no other available donors were enrolled. Ninety-four percent of patients had successful engraftment, and 8% had secondary graft failure. The treatment-related mortality rate was 10.2%, and 8% of patients had severe GVHD. Encouraging evidence of quantitative lymphocyte recovery through expansion of transplanted T cells was noted by 3 to 6 months. Seventy-five percent of patients attained a complete remission, and 1-year survival rate was 31% (95% CI, 18% to 44%). A standard-risk group of 19 patients with aplasia or in remission at transplantation demonstrated a 63% 1-year survival rate (95% CI, 38% to 80%) and 2.9-year median overall survival time (95% CI, 6.2 to 48 months). CONCLUSION: Nonmyeloablative therapy using haploidentical family member donors is feasible because the main obstacles of GVHD and graft rejection are manageable, allowing readily available stem-cell donors to be found for nearly all patients. Further qualitative and quantitative improvement in immune recovery is needed to address the high rate of relapse and risk of severe infections.
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 | 0.012 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".