A Risk Score to Predict CMV Viremia within the First 100 Days after Allogeneic Stem Cell Transplantation Based on Pre-Transplant Parameters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction: Cytomegalovirus (CMV) is a major infectious complication following allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). Risk of CMV infection varies between patients and individualized strategies for monitoring and therapy for CMV are needed. In this study, we attempted to establish a clinical score based on patient and transplant characteristics in order to predict the probability for early CMV viremia (CMV-V) within the first 100 days after HSCT. Methods: A total of 548 patients were evaluated after receiving HSCT between 2005 and 2012 at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre. CMV sero-negative recipients with CMV sero-negative donors (R-D-) were excluded. CMV-V was diagnosed in peripheral blood samples obtained on two occasions either by PCR (>200 IU/ml) or antigenemia testing (>2 positive cells/100000). A total of 378 patients were included into the study. Uni- and multivariable analyses were performed to identify risk factors for CMV-V. A weighted score was assigned to each factor based on the odds ratios determined by the multivariable analysis. A total score was calculated for each patient and used for assignment into one of 4 risk categories, the low risk (score 0-1), the intermediate (score 2-3), the high (score 4-5) and the very high (score 6-8). Median age for all patients was 51 years (range 17-71) and 173 (46%) were female. Matched related donors were used for two hundred fifteen patients (57%). Two hundred forty-three patients (64%) were transplanted for myeloid and 108 (29%) for lymphoid malignancies. One hundred thirteen patients (30%) were CMV sero-positive with a negative donor (R+D-) while 191 (51%) were recipient and donor CMV sero-positivity (R+D+). Graft versus host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis included CSA/MMF (n=200, 52%), and CSA/MTX (n=178, 48%). Myeloablative conditioning regimens were administered to 220 patients (58%), 158 patients (42%) were treated with a reduced intensity regimen. Three hundred-thirty seven patients (89%) received peripheral blood stem cells as a stem cell source. In vivo T cell depletion (TCD) with alemtuzumab was used in 138 (37%). Results: CMV-V occurred in 246 (64%) patients by day 100 post HSCT. The impact of patient and HSCT characteristics on the risk of CMV-V was assessed by multivariable analysis. The significant factors were CMV sero-status R+D- and R+D+, TCD, GVHD prophylaxis with MMF administration of myeloablative preparative regimens (Table 1). Table 1. Multivariate analysis for risk factors of CMV infection following allogeneic HSCT Table 1. Multivariate analysis for risk factors of CMV infection following allogeneic HSCT CMV-V rates on the 4 new risk categories amounted to 93% in the very high-risk, 78% in high-risk, 41% in intermediate-risk and 11% in low-risk group (Fig 1). The risk score was also predictive for the occurrence of multiple CMV-V reactivations with rates of 71%, 45%, 19% and 4% for the very high, high, intermediate and low-risk groups, respectively. The overall survival (OS) rate at 2 years was 33%(n=56) in the very high-risk group compared to 50% in other-risk groups (n=147) (P=0.01) (Fig 2). Non-relapse mortality (NRM) was 53% in the very high-risk versus 33% in other-risk groups (P<0.001). However, there was no difference on cumulative incidence of relapse between the groups (P=0.3). The cumulative incidence of grades 1-4 acute GVHD, grades 2-4, grades 3-4 at day 120 and overall chronic GVHD at 2 years was 68%, 47%, 25% and 39% in very high-risk group versus 65%, 52%, 21% and 52% in other-risk groups, suggesting slightly lower incidence of chronic GVHD in very high-risk vs other-risk groups. Conclusion: We present a new clinical scoring system to stratify the risk of early CMV viremia after allogeneic HSCT based on patients and HSCT characteristics. Identifying the risk for each patient would facilitate decision making with respect to strategies including CMV prophylaxis, pre-emptive treatment or inclusion into clinical trials, as well directing the CMV monitoring policy post-transplant. In addition, the risk score was associated with higher risk of overall mortality and NRM in the very high-risk versus other-risk groups. Figure 1 Figure 1. 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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".