Anti‐thymocyte globulin and post‐transplant cyclophosphamide predisposes to inferior outcome when using cryopreserved stem cell grafts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During 2020, the concurrent novel COVID-19 pandemic lead to widespread cryopreservation of allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant grafts based on National Marrow Donor Program and European Society of Blood and Marrow Transplantation recommendations, in order to secure grafts before the start of conditioning chemotherapy. We sought to examine the impact of this change in practice on patient outcomes. We analyzed the outcomes of 483 patients who received hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) between August 2017 and August 2020, at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Canada, in the retrospective study, comparing the outcomes between those who received cryopreserved or fresh peripheral blood stem cell grafts. Overall compared with those who received fresh grafts (n = 348), patients who received cryopreserved grafts (n = 135) had reduced survival and GRFS, reduced incidence of chronic graft-versus-host disease (GvHD), delay in neutrophil engraftment, and higher graft failure (GF), with no significant difference in relapse incidence or acute GvHD. However, recipients of cryopreserved matched-related donor HSCT showed significantly worse OS, NRM, GRFS compared with fresh grafts. Multivariable analysis of the entire cohort showed significant impact of cryopreservation on OS, relapse, cGvHD, GF, and GRFS. We conclude that cryopreservation was associated with inferior outcomes post-HSCT, possibly due to the combination of ATG and post-transplant cyclophosphamide impacting differential tolerance to cryopreservation on components of the stem cell graft; further studies are warranted to elucidate mechanisms for this observation.
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 | 0.001 | 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".