MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2911926938 · doi:10.1182/blood-2018-99-119472

Comprehensive Analysis of Systemic Immunosuppression (SIS) Duration after Allogeneic Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplant: Risk Score Model Provides Stratification of Patients According to Probability of SIS Discontinuation

2018· article· en· W2911926938 on OpenAlexaff
Maria Rhida Bautista, Arjun Law, Wilson Lam, Fotios V. Michelis, Santhosh Thyagu, Auro Viswabandya, Rajat Kumar, Jeff H. Lipton, Hans A. Messner, Dennis Dong Hwan Kim

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDiscontinuationCumulative incidenceInternal medicineHazard ratioImmunosuppressionTransplantationHematopoietic stem cell transplantationUnivariate analysisRetrospective cohort studyProportional hazards modelMultivariate analysisGraft-versus-host diseaseConfidence intervalOncology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract BACKGROUND: Systemic immunosuppression (SIS) is the standard treatment for significant acute and chronic graft versus host disease (GVHD) after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT). Previous studies have shown that 30-70% of patients require immunosuppressive treatment for GVHD for more than 2 years. Prolonged SIS increases the risk of infections, recurrence of malignancy and multi-organ complications including endocrine dysfunction, hypertension, myopathy and ocular complications. This study aimed to evaluate the predictive factors associated with increased likelihood of SIS discontinuation from 3 different time points: from the day of transplant in all patients, from the day of treatment of acute GVHD (aGVHD) and from the day of treatment of chronic GVHD (cGVHD). METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted in 674 consecutive patients who underwent allogeneic HCT at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre from 2004 to 2013. Analyses were done using cumulative incidence method considering competing risks for SIS discontinuation. The incidence of SIS discontinuation was calculated from 3 time points: from the day of transplant in all patients, from the day of treatment of aGVHD and from the day of treatment of cGVHD. Univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted to identify the predictive factors for SIS discontinuation and hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated using Fine-Gray model. Risk score models were generated based on the results from the multivariate analysis with respect to the 3 time points. Each predictive factor was weighted according to the HR. Risk score models are presented in the Table below: for each risk score model, the patients were divided into 3 risk groups based on the scores. The cumulative incidence of SIS discontinuation was compared according to the risk group for each risk score model as shown in the Figure below. RESULTS: With a median follow-up duration of 3.5 years, the probability of SIS cessation at 3 years was 30.7% (27.0-34.5%) in all patients (n=674), 25.4% (21.2-29.8%) in patients treated for aGVHD (n=457) and 34.6% (29.1-40.3%) in patients treated for cGVHD (n=347). Multivariate analysis confirmed the following predictive factors associated with increased likelihood of SIS discontinuation. In all patients (n=654): age >50 years (vs ≤ 50 yrs; p<0.001, HR 1.83), bone marrow (BM) as a source of stem cells (vs peripheral blood [PBSC]; p=0.002, HR 1.78), T-cell depletion (vs no T-cell depletion; p<0.001, HR 1.98), matched related donor (vs others; p<0.001, HR 1.81) and HLA match (vs partially mismatched HLA; p=0.026, HR 2.58). In patients treated for aGVHD (n=457): age>50 (vs ≤ 50 yrs; p<0.001, HR 1.77), BM (vs PBSC; p<0.001, HR 2.38), matched related donor (vs others; p=0.025, HR 1.55) and aGVHD grade 0-2 (vs grade 3/4 aGVHD; p<0.001, HR 1.77). In patients treated for cGVHD (n=347): age >50 (vs ≤ 50 yrs; p=0.002, HR 1.83), BM (vs PBSC; p=0.004, HR 2.13), Grade 0-2 aGVHD (vs grade 3/4 aGVHD; p=0.003, HR 2.32), cGVHD grade (mild vs moderate vs severe; p<0.001, HR 2.02) and classical subtype (vs overlap syndrome; p=0.028, HR 1.52). The risk score model stratified the patients into low, intermediate and high risk groups: for all patients, SIS discontinuation at 3 years was 52.5% (37.9-65.2%), 30.7% (26.5-35.0%) and 17% (8.6-27.7%) respectively (p<0.0001); in patients treated for aGVHD, SIS discontinuation at 3 years was 70.6% (39.0-87.9%), 29.2% (24.0-34.5%) and 2.7% (0.5-8.6%) respectively (p<0.001); in patients treated for cGVHD, SIS discontinuation at 3 years was 62.8% (48.4-74.3%), 36.4% (29.8-43.0%) and 5.7% (1.0-17.1%) respectively (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Older age, bone marrow as a source of stem cells, T-cell depletion, matched related donor and a full matched donor increase the likelihood of discontinuation of SIS after allogeneic HCT. In addition, the severity of aGVHD and cGVHD significantly affects the chance of SIS discontinuation. The proposed risk score stratifies patients into well-defined groups according to the chance of SIS discontinuation. Further studies in a larger number of patients are strongly recommended to validate this finding. Prospective validation is also warranted to confirm the utility of the risk score as a clinical tool for estimation of likelihood of SIS discontinuation in patients after allogeneic HCT. Figure. Figure. Disclosures Lipton: Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding.

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)0.007
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 score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.230 · 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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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