Hematopoietic cell transplant outcomes after myeloablative conditioning with fludarabine, busulfan, low‐dose total body irradiation, and rabbit antithymocyte globulin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Optimal conditioning and graft-vs-host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis for hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) are unknown. Here, we report on outcomes after low toxicity, myeloablative conditioning consisting of fludarabine, busulfan, and 4 Gy total body irradiation, in combination with thymoglobulin and post-transplant methotrexate and cyclosporine. We retrospectively studied 700 patients with hematologic malignancies who received blood stem cells from 7 to 8/8 HLA-matched unrelated or related donors. Median follow-up of surviving patients was 5 years. At 5 years, overall survival (OS), relapse-free survival (RFS), and chronic GVHD/relapse-free survival (cGRFS) were 58%, 55%, and 40%. Risk factors for poor OS, RFS, and cGRFS were (1). high to very high disease risk index (DRI), (2). high recipient age, and (3). cytomegalovirus (CMV)-seropositive recipient with seronegative donor (D-R+). The latter risk factor applied particularly to patients with lymphoid malignancies. Neither donor other than HLA-matched sibling (7-8/8 unrelated) nor one HLA allele mismatch was risk factors for poor OS, RFS, or cGRFS. In conclusion, the above regimen results in excellent long-term outcomes. The outcomes are negatively impacted by older age, high or very high DRI, and CMV D-R+ serostatus, but not by donor unrelatedness or one HLA allele mismatch.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".