Comparison of High Doses of Total Body Irradiation in Myeloablative Conditioning before Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Malignancy relapse is the most common cause of treatment failure among recipients of hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT). Conditioning dose intensity can reduce disease relapse but is offset by toxicities. Improvements in radiotherapy techniques and supportive care may translate to better outcomes with higher irradiation doses in the modern era. This study compares outcomes of recipients of increasing doses of high-dose total body irradiation (TBI) divided into intermediate high dose (IH; 13-13.75 Gy) and high dose (HD; 14 Gy) with standard dose (SD; 12 Gy) with cyclophosphamide. A total of 2721 patients ages 18 to 60 years with hematologic malignancies receiving HCT from 2001 to 2013 were included. Cumulative incidences of nonrelapse mortality (NRM) at 5 years were 28% (95% confidence interval [CI], 25% to 30%), 32% (95% CI, 29% to 36%), and 34% (95% CI, 28% to 39%) for SD, IH, and HD, respectively (P = .02). Patients receiving IH-TBI had a 25% higher risk of NRM compared with those receiving SD-TBI (12 Gy) (P = .007). Corresponding cumulative incidences of relapse were 36% (95% CI, 34% to 38%), 32% (95% CI, 29% to 36%), and 26% (95% CI, 21% to 31%; P = .001). Hazard ratios for mortality compared with SD were 1.06 (95% CI, .94 to 1.19; P = .36) for IH and .89 (95% CI, .76 to 1.05; P = .17) for HD. The study demonstrates that despite improvements in supportive care, myeloablative conditioning using higher doses of TBI (with cyclophosphamide) leads to worse NRM and offers no survival benefit over SD, despite reducing disease relapse.
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 | 0.000 | 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".