Are Outcomes After Myeloablative Conditioning Regimen in Double Cord Blood Transplantation (UCBT) Better Than Single UCBT for Adults with Acute Leukemia in Remission?.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Abstract 3083 Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) is indicated for patients (pts) with acute leukemia (AL) with poor-risk cytogenetics or refractoriness to chemotherapy. For adults requiring HSCT urgently, such as pts in first complete remission (CR1), a single (s) or double unit (d) UCBT is a valid stem cells source. In the sUCBT setting, type of conditioning regimen seems to be associated with better outcome (Sanz BMT 2012). With the aim to compare single vs double UCBT after myeloablative conditioning regimen (MAC) in a homogeneous series of pts, we analyzed 239 adults (>18years) with AL in CR1. Pts were transplanted with sUCBT (n=156) or dUCBT (n=83) from 2005–2011 in EBMT centers for ALL (n=101) and AML (n=138). Type of MAC was statistically associated with outcomes therefore pts were analyzed in 3 different groups: Group 1: pts receiving sUCBT with TBI-based+Cy (+Flu) (n=68) (performed in 42 transplant centers (TC)), Group 2: pts receiving sUCBT with Bu+Flu+Thiotepa (n=88) (performed in 23 TC) and Group 3: pts receiving dUCBT with Cy+TBI+Flu (n=83) (performed in 47 TC). No statistical differences were found among the 3 groups for pts and disease characteristics (diagnosis, risk, gender, weight, CMV status, year of UCBT and time from diagnosis to UCBT) however pts in group2 were older than in group1 and 3 (median age 38 vs 33 vs 31 years) (p=0.03). Cytogenetic at diagnosis was available for 176 pts, 39% of pts were classified in the intermediate risk and 56% in unfavorable risk group. Forty-two pts had t(9;22) and 26 FLT3/ITD mutation. No differences on cytogenetic were found among the 3 groups. Thirty one percent of CB units were identical to recipient or had 1 HLA disparity (antigen level typing for HLA-A and B and allelic level for DRB1) while 69% had 2–3 HLA disparities. There was no difference on HLA disparities among the 3 groups. Median infused TNC was 2.9×107/kg for group1, 3×107/kg for group2, and 3.7×107/kg for group3 (p=0.01) and median CD34 was 1.2×105/kg, 1.6×105/kg and 1.5×105/kg, respectively (p=0.32). ATG was part of conditioning regimen in 73% of pts. The use of ATG was different in the 3 groups (70%, 90% and 40% for group1, 2 and 3, respectively p<0.001). GVHD prophylaxis consisted either of CSA±MMF or CSA±steroids in 46% and 22% of pts, respectively. All groups had the same median follow-up time: 24 (range 3–74) months. For group1, group2 and group3, the cumulative incidence (CI) of 60 days neutrophil recovery was 82%, 89% and 87% (p=0.15), with median time of 27, 21 and 24 days, respectively (p<0.001). Chimerism analysis performed at day 100 showed full donor chimerism in 87% of pts (data available for 80% of pts who engrafted). No differences in chimerism status were found between the 3 groups (p=0.47). At day 100, CI of acute GVHD (grade II-IV) was 30% vs 20% vs 45% for group1, group2 and group3, respectively (p=0.001). Pts receiving a dUCBT who developed aGvHD (n=38), experienced mainly grade II aGvHD with skin involvement (grade II (n=25), grade III (n=10), grade IV (n=3)). CI of chronic GvHD at 1 year was 29%, with no differences in the incidence among the groups. At 1 year, CI of TRM was 44% for group1, 33% for group2 and 36% for group3 (p=0.46). In multivariate analysis, two factors were associated with higher TRM: diagnosis of ALL (p=0.048) and age>35 years (p=0.049). One-Hundred-six pts died and the causes of death were infection (n=38), GvHD (n=18), other transplant-related events (n=31) or relapse (n=18). CI of 2y relapse was 25% for group1, 18% for group2 and 16% for group3 (p=0.22). No factors were found to be associated with increase relapse incidence in multivariate analysis. The 2y probability of leukemia-free-survival (LFS) was 31% for group1 (sUCBT-TBI based), 48% for group2 (sUCBT-BuFluTT), and 47% for group3 (dUCBT) (p=0.03). No center effect was found for LFS. In multivariate analysis, use of sUCBT using TBI based MAC (HR=0.9, p=0.003), diagnosis of ALL (HR=0.69, p=0.04) and age>35years (HR=1.4, p=0.04) were independently associated with decreased LFS. In this retrospective based registry analysis, in the myeloablative setting for adults with AL in CR1, outcomes (TRM, RI and LFS) after dUCBT were not statistically different from sUCBT using iv-BuFluTT. However, compared to sUCBT using TBI-based MAC, dUCBT was associated with lower RI and better LFS rates. In the MAC setting, the combination of conditioning regimens and type of graft (single vs. double) may have different impact UCBT outcomes. 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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".