Low rates of acute and chronic GVHD with ATG and PTCy in matched and mismatched unrelated donor peripheral blood stem cell transplants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: We evaluated the combination of ATG and PTCy for GVHD prophylaxis in matched and mismatched unrelated PBSCTs for high-risk hematological malignancies. METHODS: We treated 102 patients with reduced intensity conditioning (RIC) with fludarabine, busulfan, and TBI 200 cGy. GVHD prophylaxis included rabbit ATG (thymoglobulin at total dose of 4.5 mg/kg divided over days -3 to -1), PTCy (50 mg/kg/day on day +3 and on day +4), and cyclosporine. Clinical and outcome data were collected retrospectively. RESULTS: Among 102 patients, 76 patients received 10/10 MUD transplants and 26 patients received 9/10 mismatched transplants. The median age was 59 years. At a median follow-up of 15 months (range 0.6 to -33 months), the 1-year OS in MUD and MMUD cohort was 75% and 50%, respectively (P = 0.027). The corresponding one-year PFS was 67% and 35%, respectively (P = 0.0024). The incidence of grade 3-4 acute GVHD was 11.8% in MUD and 3.8% in MMUD group, and that of NIH stage moderate/severe chronic GVHD in the 2 groups was 10.5% and 7.6%, respectively. Cytomegalovirus (CMV) reactivation was seen in 49% patients. The cumulative incidence of relapse was 21.1% in the MUD group and 42.3% in the MMUD group. CONCLUSION: Our experience shows that PTCy and ATG can be combined for GVHD prophylaxis in matched unrelated donor PBSCTs with low rates of Gr3-4 acute GVHD and chronic GVHD, and acceptable relapse rates.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".