MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3095539888 · doi:10.1182/blood-2020-137221

Comparison of Outcomes after Haploidentical Relative and HLA Matched Unrelated Donor Transplantation with Post-Transplant Cyclophosphamide Containing Gvhd Prophylaxis Regimens

2020· article· en· W3095539888 on OpenAlexaff
Mahasweta Gooptu, Andrew St. Martin, Rizwan Romee, Mukta Arora, Monzr M. Al Malki, Joseph H. Antin, Christopher Bredeson, Claudio G. Brunstein, Saurabh Chhabra, Ephraim J. Fuchs, Nilanjan Ghosh, Michael R. Grunwald, Yoshihiro Inamoto, Christopher G. Kanakry, Natasha Kekre, Joseph P. McGuirk, Ian McNiece, Rohtesh S. Mehta, Marco Last Mielcarek, Filipo Milano, Dipenkumar Modi, Ran Reshef, Mark A. Schroeder, Robert J. Soiffer, Scott R. Solomon, Edmund K. Waller, Mary Eapen

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation
Canadian institutionsOttawa Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineTransplantationGraft-versus-host diseaseCyclophosphamideContext (archaeology)Cumulative incidenceCalcineurinGastroenterologyFludarabineSurgeryImmunologyChemotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Post-transplant cyclophosphamide (PT-Cy) in HLA-haploidentical hematopoietic cell transplantation (Haplo-HCT) results in acceptable engraftment and graft-versus-host disease (GVHD). Results of BMT CTN 1203 that compared matched unrelated donor (MUD) HCT with PT-Cy containing to calcineurin inhibitor (CNI) containing GVHD prophylaxis following reduced intensity conditioning, showed better 1-year GVHD free relapse free survival with PT-Cy. The relative value of a MUD versus a Haplo donor in the context of PT-Cy is not known. In this study we compared outcomes after Haplo- and MUD HCT with PT-Cy containing GVHD prophylaxis. Methods: Eligible patients were aged >18 years and received haplo-HCT or MUD HCT for AML, ALL and MDS in the US from 2011-2018. Patients received myeloablative (n=1001) or reduced intensity (n=1398) regimens and were analyzed separately. All recipients of haplo-HCT and reduced intensity conditioning MUD HCT received PT-Cy + CNI + mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) for GVHD prophylaxis. Among recipients of myeloablative conditioning MUD HCT, 55% received PT-Cy + CNI + MMF and 45%, PT-Cy + CNI. Cox regression models were built to compare outcomes between donor types. As PT-Cy containing GVHD prophylaxis for myeloablative conditioning MUD HCT is recent; therefore, outcomes were censored at 1-year. A p-value ≤0.01 was considered significant. Results: Myeloablative conditioning regimen: Age at transplant, sex, performance score, co-morbidity and CMV serostatus did not differ between recipients of haplo- and MUD HCT. Haplo-HCT recipients were less likely to be Caucasian (69% vs. 91%). They were also more likely to have AML (55% vs. 47) and less likely to have MDS (13% vs. 31%). Disease risk index did not differ between treatment groups. The predominant conditioning regimen for haplo-HCT was total body irradiation (TBI) + fludarabine (44%) for Haplo-HCT and for MUD HCT, fludarabine + busulfan ± thiotepa (59%). Engraftment rates did not differ between groups. Results of multivariate analyses are shown in Table 1. Compared to Haplo-HCT, grade II-IV acute GVHD risk was higher after MUD-HCT with PT-Cy + CNI GVHD prophylaxis. There were no differences in grade III-IV acute or chronic GVHD risk between treatment groups. Non-relapse mortality, relapse, disease-free and overall survival did not differ between treatment groups. Reduced intensity conditioning regimen: Age at transplant, sex, performance score, co-morbidity and CMV serostatus did not differ between recipients of haplo- and MUD HCT. Haplo-HCT recipients were less likely to be Caucasian (72% vs. 95%). Haplo-HCT recipients were less likely to have MDS (19% vs. 24%). Disease risk index did not differ between treatment groups. The predominant conditioning regimen was TBI 200 cGy + fludarabine + cyclophosphamide (88%) for Haplo-HCT and for MUD HCT, TBI 200 cGy + fludarabine + cyclophosphamide (37%) and fludarabine + melphalan (33%). Engraftment rates did not differ between groups. Results of multivariate analyses are shown in Table 2. Compared to Haplo-HCT acute and chronic GVHD risks did not differ between treatment groups. However, non-relapse mortality was lower after MUD-HCT which led to higher disease-free and overall survival. Conclusion: In patients who received myeloablative conditioning and PT-Cy + CNI + MMF GVHD prophylaxis, haploidentical related and matched unrelated donors are comparable. However, in patients who received less intense conditioning regimens, disease free and overall survival was higher after MUD HCT compared to Haplo-HCT. Disclosures Arora: Fate Therapeutics: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Kadmon: Research Funding; Syndax: Research Funding. Al Malki:Neximmune: Consultancy; Jazz Pharmacuticals, Inc: Consultancy; Rigel Pharma: Consultancy. Brunstein:Magenta: Research Funding; Gamida: Research Funding; Astex: Research Funding; AlloVir: Other: Advisory board. Grunwald:Merck: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding; Premier: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Cardinal Health: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Cardinal Health: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Cardinal Health: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Astellas: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Premier: Consultancy; Trovagene: Consultancy; Astellas: Consultancy; Astellas: Consultancy; Premier: Consultancy; Trovagene: Consultancy; Trovagene: Consultancy; Genentech/Roche: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Research Funding; Forma Therapeutics: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Forma Therapeutics: Research Funding; Forma Therapeutics: Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy. Kekre:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria. McGuirk:Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Allo Vir: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; Fresenius Biotech: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Kite Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pluristem Ltd: Research Funding; Gamida Cell: Research Funding; Bellicum Pharmaceutical: Research Funding. Mehta:CSL Behring: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Kadmon: Research Funding. Modi:MorphoSys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Reshef:Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support, Research Funding; Immatics: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Takeda: Research Funding; Monsanto: Consultancy; Incyte: Research Funding; Shire: Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Magenta: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Kiadis: Research Funding; Bluebird: Research Funding; Atara: Consultancy, Research Funding. Schroeder:Partners Therapeutics: Other; Gilead Sciences Inc: Other; Pfizer: Other; Genentech Inc: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Other: served on advisory boards and received honoraria or consultant fees, Research Funding; Novo Nordisk: Other; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; GSK: Other; FlatIron Inc: Other; Dova Pharmaceuticals: Other; Astellas: Other; Janssen: Research Funding; Genzyme Sanofi: Other: served on advisory boards and received honoraria or consultant fees, Research Funding; PBD Incorporated: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Amgen: Other: served on advisory boards and received honoraria or consultant fees, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Fortis: Research Funding; Cellect Inc: Research Funding. Soiffer:alexion: Consultancy; Rheos Therapeutics: Consultancy; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy; VOR Biopharma: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Be the Match/ National Marrow Donor Program: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kiadis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Precision Bioscience: Consultancy; Mana Therapeutics: Consultancy; Cugene: Consultancy; Juno: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Waller:Verastem Oncology, Inc: Consultancy, Research Funding.

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)0.002
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
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 integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.251 · 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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood→Same topicHematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation→French-language works237,207→