Intravenous Busulfan-Based Myeloablative Conditioning Regimens Prior to Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation for Hematologic Malignancies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Busulfan (Bu)-containing regimens are commonly used in myeloablative conditioning regimens before allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT). Yet, there is considerable variability on how Bu is administered related to frequency (4 times a day [Q6] or daily [Q24]) and combinations with other chemotherapeutic agents (cyclophosphamide [Cy] or fludarabine [Flu]). We performed a prospective cohort study of recipients of Bu-based conditioning according to contemporary practices to compare different approaches (BuCy Q6, n = 495; BuFlu Q24, n = 331; BuCy Q24, n = 96; BuFlu Q6, n = 91) in patients with myeloid malignancies between 2009 and 2011. BuFlu Q24 recipients were more likely to be older and tended to have worse performance status and a higher comorbid burden. The cumulative incidences of hepatic veno-occlusive disease (P = .40), idiopathic pneumonia (P = .50), and seizures (P = .50) did not differ across groups. One-year HCT-related mortality ranged from 12% to 16% (P = .80), 3-year relapse incidence ranged from 32% to 36% (P = .80), and 3-year overall survival ranged from 51% to 58% (P = .20) across groups. This study demonstrates that HCT conditioning regimens using i.v. Bu Q6 or Q24 alone or in combination with Cy or Flu have similar outcomes in the myeloablative setting for treatment of myeloid malignancies.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".