Outcome following second allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation: A single‐center experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Second allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) may be indicated following relapse or graft failure following first HCT. Our retrospective single-center study sought to investigate parameters that influence post-second allogeneic HCT survival. METHOD: We investigated 92 patients who underwent second allogeneic HCT between 1980 and 2016 for relapse or graft failure following first HCT. Median age at second HCT was 41 years (range 16-68), performed for relapse in 59 patients (64%) and for graft failure in 33 patients (36%). RESULTS: On univariate analysis, 3-year OS of the entire cohort was 35% (95% CI=25-45). Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) score (3-year OS 48% for ECOG 0-1, 18% for ECOG 2-3, P=.0006), second HCT indication (3-year OS 43% for relapse, 20% for graft failure, P=.02), time from first HCT to relapse/graft failure (3-year OS for <12months 21%, for ≥12months 46%, P=.009), and conditioning intensity (3-year OS for MA 42% vs other regimens 23%, P=.08) significantly influenced OS. Multivariable analysis confirmed ECOG score (HR=2.15 for ECOG 2-3, 95% CI=1.32-3.51, P=.002) and second HCT indication (HR=1.67 for graft failure, 95% CI=1.02-2.75, P=.04) to independently influence survival. CONCLUSION: Second HCT may offer long-term survival particularly to patients with good performance status who relapse post-first HCT.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".