Is There Difference between the Survival Rate and Treatment Related Complications between Peripheral Blood Stem Cell Transplantation and Bone Marrow Transplantation for Pediatric Hematological Malignancy?: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: As a source of cells for hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT), peripheral blood stem cells (PBSC) have become a major alternative to bone marrow, the most common source of cells. A meta-analysis showed that the use of PBSC in adults is not superior with respect to overall survival, and the incidence of chronic graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) is more frequent after PBSC transplantation (PBSCT) than after bone marrow transplantation (BMT). Furthermore, several studies suggested that PBSCT in children results in poor overall survival compared with BMT, and the benefit of PBSCT is controversial. To elucidate this question, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the survival rate and treatment related complications of pediatric patients receiving PBSCT with those receiving BMT. Methods: Based on the pre-defined protocol, MEDLINE, EMBASE plus EMBASE classics, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform Search Portal and Clinical Trials.gov records were searched from inception through July 25, 2018 with no language restriction. The search terms included "hematopoietic stem cell transplantation" AND "allogeneic transplantation" AND "children". We included randomized control studies or cohort studies. The Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale was used to evaluate study quality. The primary outcome was to evaluate five-year overall survival after HCT. Secondary outcomes were five-year event-free survival after HCT, non-relapse mortality, the incidence of acute and chronic GVHD, and time to platelet and neutrophil engraftment. We performed meta-analyses using random effect models with risk ratios (RR) and a 95% confidence interval (CI). Heterogeneity was assessed using the I-squared statistic and chi-squared test. Publication bias was assessed with funnel plots. Results: We identified a total of 5,248 relevant studies. Seven cohort studies with a total of 4,328 patients (BMT group 3,185 patients and PBSCT group 1,143 patients) were included in the present study. There was no significant difference between PBSCT and BMT for five-year overall survival (RR: 1.17, 95% CI: 0.91-1.52, heterogeneity I2=69%, p=0.22) and five year event free survival (RR: 1.14, 95% CI: 0.93-1.39, heterogeneity I2=57%, p=0.05), respectively. The risk of chronic GVHD in the PBSCT group was higher than those in the BMT group (RR: 1.65, 95% CI: 1.18-2.03, heterogeneity I2=75%, p=0.002). The risk of non-relapse mortality with PBSCT was higher than with BMT (RR: 1.73, 95% CI: 1.50-1.99, heterogeneity I2=0%, p<0.00001), and the relapse rate did not show a significant difference between BMT and PBSCT (RR:1.26, 95% CI: 0.94-1.69, heterogeneity I2=71%, p=0.004). Conclusions: This meta-analysis did not show significant difference in overall survival or relapse between PBSCT and BMT for pediatric hematological malignancy. However, a higher risk of chronic GVHD and transplantation related mortality was associated with PBSCT. Table. Table. 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 | 0.011 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.035 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".