MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Influence of Age on Outcomes in Patients Who Receive Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation.

2006· article· en· W2565735109 on OpenAlexaff
Dawn Goodyear, Yvonne Gulliver, Peter Duggan

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeutropenia and Cancer Infections
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMultiple myelomaAutologous stem-cell transplantationTransplantationNeutropeniaHematopoietic stem cell transplantationInternal medicineSurgeryToxicity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction: Most randomized trials that evaluate the use of autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) exclude older patients due to the expectation of more complications and higher mortality. There is little prospective randomized data assessing the benefit of ASCT in older patient groups. Despite this, ASCT is frequently being offered to older patients with myeloma and NHL. The aim of this project is to compare outcomes of patients younger and older than 60 years of age who have received an ASCT. Methods: Review of a prospective database of all patients who have undergone ASCT at the St. John’s Health Sciences Centre since 2001. Outcome data collected included hematopoietic recovery and transfusion requirements, occurrence of NCI grade 3 or 4 toxicity (hematologic toxicity excluded), and transplant-related mortality. Mild (grade1–2) toxicity was not compared. The rate of febrile neutropenia was studied separately from other NCI toxicities. Results: Between November 2001 and June 2006 stem cell mobilisation was attempted in 125 patients and was successful in 113 (90%). Mobilisation failed in 5/45 (11%) of older patients and 7/80 patients under 60 (9%) (p=0.70). Transplant has not been performed in 17 patients (8 patients have cells stored for future use, 9 patients progressed or developed severe new health issues). 96 patients underwent ASCT. Four patients had a second ASCT during this period, but only data from the first transplant was included in this study. There were 33 patients age ≥ 60 and 63 patients < 60 years. Baseline characteristics are presented in Table 1. Though there was no difference in the median stem cell dose received, when patients were grouped according to the dose received (<2.5, 2.5–5.0, 5.0–10, and > 10 × 106/kg) we see that older patient were more likely to receive a lower stem cell dose (p = 0.033). Despite this, hematopoietic recovery was similar between the two groups. There was no significant difference between time to neutrophil recovery, platelet recovery, transfusion requirements, GCSF administration, and duration of hospitalization (table 2). Febrile neutropenia occurred in 75% of patients < 60 versus 81% of those ≥ 60 (p=ns). Grade 3 or 4 toxicity was experienced by 68% and 67% respectively. There was one death due to transplant related complications in the younger age group, and none in the older group. Conclusion: This study showed no difference in recovery, toxicity, or transplant-related mortality between younger and older patients after ASCT. Table 1: Baseline Characteristics < 60 years ≥ 60 years Number of patients 63 33 Male 41 18 Female 22 15 Median Age (Range) 49.6 (21–59) 64.6 (60–73) Diagnosis Non-Hodgkins Lymphoma 28 15 Multiple Myelom 24 17 Hodgkins Disease 9 1 Other 2 0 Conditioning Regimen BEAM 30 13 Melphalan 27 18 Other 6 2 Stem Cell Dose Median CD34 dose* (average, range) 5.7 (7.8, 2.7–50.9) 5.3 (5.7, 2.1–18.4) # receiving < 2.5* 0 4 2.5 – 5.0* 20 12 5.0 – 10.0* 36 14 > 10.0* 7 3 Table 2: Hematologic Recovery < 60 ≥ 60 P-Value Median days to ANC > 0.5 ×109 (range) 10 (8–12) 10 (9–12) .21 Median days to Platelets > 20 (range) 11 (7–54) 11 (8–67) .13 Median RBC Transfusions (ave, range) 0 (1.5, 0–12) 1 (1.9, 0–7) .49 Median platelet transfusions (ave, range) 1 (1.9, 0–26) 2 (1.7, 0–7) .77 Median Days of G-CSF 6 7 .25 Ave # Days in hospital from day 0 – 60 13.2 (0–60) 13.8 (0–35) .79

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.226 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBloodSame topicNeutropenia and Cancer InfectionsFrench-language works237,207