Reduced Intensity Versus Myeloablative Conditioning for Allogeneic Stem Cell Transplantation in Acute Myeloid Leukemia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction Reduced intensity conditioning (RIC) regimens for allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (SCT) offer a potential treatment for otherwise incurable cases of acute myelogenous leukemia (AML) with less associated toxicity compared to myeloablative conditioning (MAC). Eradication of malignant cells after RIC depends largely on the graft-versus leukemia effect (GVL). These regimens are becoming increasingly popular, particularly in older patients or those with comorbidities. They may also be offered to otherwise healthy patients based on personal or physician preference, as there is growing evidence that overall survival may be equivalent for both treatments. We retrospectively reviewed the charts of Saskatoon Cancer Centre patients receiving either RIC or MAC to compare the incidence and grade of graft versus host disease (GVHD), progression free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Methods We identified 74 patients who underwent HSCT for AML in complete remission (CR) between January 2000- December 2013. Of these patients, 55 received MAC and 19 received RIC. Median age at HSCT was 48 years (range 18-68). In the group receiving MAC, 36% of patients were >50 years, whereas 74% of patients receiving RIC were >50 yrs of age. Results Patients receiving RIC experienced greater incidence of chronic GVHD (63% vs 41%, p=.09) and relapse (54% vs 30%, p=.07). Incidence of acute GVHD was the same for either regimen (53%). Median overall survival was similar (39 vs 38 months), with lower early mortality in RIC later overtaking MAC at 27 months. Progression free survival demonstrated a non-statistically significant advantage for MAC (median 43 vs 49 months). Conclusion RIC has been associated with greater incidence of chronic GVHD and relapse, with no difference in overall survival. Patients receiving RIC are more likely to be >50 years of age, making comparisons challenging. The results of this review suggest that MAC is the preferred regimen for patients who can tolerate its toxic effects due to reduced incidence of chronic GVHD and relapse, however the similarity in overall survival makes the choice of either conditioning regimen reasonable. Future studies to identify the best conditioning regimen are warranted. Overall Survival Figure 1 Figure 1. Progression Free Survival Figure 2 Figure 2. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.
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) | 0.002 | 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".