MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2980116131 · doi:10.1182/blood.v114.22.526.526

Comparable Disease-Free and Overall Survival After “Well-Matched” Unrelated Donor and Matched Sibling Donor Transplantation in Acute Myeloid Leukemia with Adverse Risk Karyotype in First Complete Remission: A Report From the Acute Leukemia Working Committee of the Centre for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research.

2009· article· en· W2980116131 on OpenAlexaff
Vikas Gupta, Martin S. Tallman, Wensheng He, Brent R. Logan, John F. DiPersio, Donald Bunjes, Daniel J. Weisdorf

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Myeloid Leukemia Research
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInternal medicineMyeloid leukemiaMedicineOncologyTransplantationHematopoietic stem cell transplantationGastroenterology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Abstract 526 In patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in first complete remission (CR1), the indications for matched sibling donor (MSD) transplants and unrelated donor (URD) haemopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) are different. We sought to determine the prognostic impact of donor type on the outcomes of AML with adverse risk karyotype in CR1, a high-risk AML population considered as a standard indication for MSD and URD HSCT. We evaluated the outcomes of 584 patients undergoing allogeneic HSCT for AML with adverse risk karyotype in CR1 between 1995 and 2006, reported to the CIBMTR. Adverse risk karyotype was defined according to SWOG/ECOG classification. Cytogenetics abnormalities were further classified as: complex karyotype (3 or more abnormalities), 32%; and Non-complex divided as abnormal chromosome 7, 25%; chromosome 5, 9%; MLL gene rearrangements, 18%; t (6;9), 5%; and others, 10%. 226 patients underwent MSD and 358 URD. URD were classified based on high resolution typing as:” well matched” [n=254 (71%)] with no known disparity at HLA A, B, C, DRB1; and, “partially matched” [n=104 (29%)] with one locus known or likely mismatched. Previous MDS was present in 19% and 14% had therapy-induced (t-AML). Conditioning regimens were myeloablative and reduced intensity in 74% and 26%, respectively. At 3 years treatment-related mortality (TRM) incidence was 28% (95% CI 24-31); relapse 36%(32-40); disease-free survival (DFS) 36%(32-41) and overall survival (OS) 39%(35-44). Multivariate analyses are summarized in the table. “Well matched” URD and MSD yielded similar DFS and OS, while outcomes were significantly inferior for “partially matched” URD. Cytogenetically defined subsets had similar outcomes. Evaluated as a time-dependent covariate, chronic GVHD had a significantly lower risk of relapse (RR 0.68, p=0.046), while acute GVHD had no effect (RR 0.99, p=0.96). “Well matched” URD and MSD lead to similar DFS and OS in AML CR1patients with adverse risk karyotype. The pool of patients who may benefit from graft-vs-leukemia effect generated with allogeneic HSCT may be considerably expanded with “well-matched” URD HSCT. If a suitable MSD is not availabel, “well-matched” URD should be strongly considered where a MSD HSCT would otherwise be undertaken. 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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.246 · 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

Citations2
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood→Same topicAcute Myeloid Leukemia Research→French-language works237,207→