MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Short and Long Term Efficacy of Autologous Bone Marrow Cells To Support Intensive Chemotherapy in Patients Failing Peripheral Blood Stem Cell Mobilization.

2007· article· en· W2586727891 on OpenAlexaff
Tara Seshadri, Khalil Al‐Farsi, Julie Stakiw, Clement Ma, R Saragosa, Armand Keating, Michael Crump, John Kuruvilla

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEtoposideBone marrowChemotherapyMelphalanInternal medicineStem cellSurgeryCD34OncologyProgression-free survivalUrologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction: Most autologous hematopoietic cell transplants (AHCT) are performed using peripheral blood mobilized progenitor cells (PBSC). However a small but significant proportion of patients (pts) are unable to mobilize adequate numbers of PBSC. The use of G-CSF-stimulated bone marrow (BM) derived progenitor cells is one method to circumvent this problem and enable AHCT to be performed. However, the long and short-term ability to engraft and the impact of this method on overall and progression free survival (OS and PFS) have not been established. Methods: We reviewed 52 pts (17 AML, 24 NHL, 11 HL) who failed PBSC collection between Jan 1999-Dec 2006 (<2×5106 CD34+cells/kg) and underwent G-CSF stimulated BM harvest to permit high dose therapy (etoposide 60 mg/kg + melphalan 160–180 mg/m2, + TBI 500 or 1200 cGy for pts with AML). 23 pts were supported by harvested BM (44%) and 29 (56%) with a mixture (Mx) of BM and PBSC. Overall and PFS was compared to pts undergoing AHCT using chemotherapy-mobilized PBSCs (n=440) in the same time period (AML n=32, NHL n=273, HL=135) who had a similar median age, pre-transplant induction, salvage therapy and intensive therapy regimens. Kaplan-Meier curves and the Log-rank test were used to compare the OS and PFS between cases and controls. Due to skewed data, the non-parametric Wilcoxon Rank Test was used for simple comparisons of clinical factors. Results: Median age of the cohort at AHCT was 43 years (range 24–68, 67% females). Status prior to AHCT was CR 44%, PR 54%, and SD 2%. Number of chemotherapy regimens (median):AML: 3; NHL: 3; HL: 2. Median BM CFU-GM infused was 4.4×104/kg and median PBSC infused was 0.1×106/kg (n=29). Median follow up times for AML/NHL/HL was 20, 18 and 50 months respectively. Twenty-three pts died:18 from disease progression, 4 treatment-related (TRM) and one of second cancer. Median engraftment time for neutrophils (>0.5×109/L) was 14 days and platelets (>20×109/L) was 27 days and was significantly longer compared to pts who received PBSC alone (10 and 11 days, respectively, p<0.0001). Pts receiving Mx grafts had significantly faster engraftment vs those receiving BM alone (p<0.001). Transfusion requirements (median) during the ASCT admission were 4 units for RBC and 25 units for platelets. Median 12 month Hb, platelet and neutrophil counts were 116 g/L (70–149), 113×109/L (21–238) and 2.4×109/L (0.3–6.2). Two year OS of patients who received harvested BM versus PBSC alone was: 63%/71% (AML, p=0.51), 57%/70% (NHL, p=0.04) and 71%/94% (HL, p=0.04). There was no significant difference in PFS between BM recipients and controls. Non relapse mortality was 5/52 (9.6%) for pts receiving BM compared to 18/440 (4%) supported by PBSCs. Conclusion: Performing an AHCT with BM in patients failing PBSC collection is feasible. Although engraftment is significantly delayed it appears sustained at 12 months post AHCT. Overall survival is inferior compared with patients receiving PBSC alone. Reasons for inferior disease-specific outcomes for pts with lymphoma receiving BM need to be determined.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.241 · 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

Citations1
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood→Same topicHematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation→French-language works237,207→