Fludarabine and Melphalan Compared with Reduced Doses of Busulfan and Fludarabine Improve Transplantation Outcomes in Older Patients with Myelodysplastic Syndromes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Reduced-intensity conditioning (RIC) regimens developed to extend the use of allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) to older patients have resulted in encouraging outcomes. We aimed to compare the 2 most commonly used RIC regimens, i.v. fludarabine with busulfan (FluBu) and fludarabine with melphalan (FluMel), in patients with myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS). Through the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR), we identified 1045 MDS patients age ≥60 years who underwent first HSCT with a matched related or matched (8/8) unrelated donor using an RIC regimen. The CIBMTR's definition of RIC was used: a regimen that incorporated an i.v. busulfan total dose ≤7.2 mg/kg or a low-dose melphalan total dose ≤150 mg/m 2 . The 2 groups, recipients of FluBu (n = 697) and recipients of FluMel (n = 448), were comparable in terms of disease- and transplantation-related characteristics except for the more frequent use of antithymocyte globulin or alemtuzumab in the FluBu group (39% versus 31%). The median age was 67 years in both groups. FluMel was associated with a reduced relapse incidence (RI) compared with FluBu, with a 1-year adjusted incidence of 26% versus 44% ( P ≤ .0001). Transplantation-related mortality (TRM) was higher in the FluMel group (26% versus 16%; P ≤ .0001). Because the magnitude of improvement with FluMel in RI was greater than the improvement in TRM with FluBu, disease-free survival (DFS) was better at 1 year and beyond with FluMel compared with FluBu (48% versus 40% at 1 year [ P = .02] and 35% versus 27% at 3 years [ P = .01]). Overall survival was comparable in the 2 groups at 1 year (63% versus 61%; P = .4) but was significantly improved with FluMel compared with FluBu at 3 years (46% versus 39%; P = .03). Our results suggest that FluMel is associated with superior DFS compared with FluBu owing to reduced RI in older patients with MDS patients. © 2021 American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy. Published by Elsevier Inc.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".