Umbilical Cord Blood Transplantation after Graft Failure from a Previous Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Graft failure (GF) is a life-threatening complication after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HCT). In the absence of autologous recovery, a second HCT is necessary to attempt to prevent death due to prolonged pancytopenia. Previous studies describing outcomes of second HCT performed after GF with different types of donor sources report wide ranges of overall survival (OS) and transplantation-related mortality (TRM); however, studies including a large number of patients undergoing a second HCT with umbilical cord blood (UCB) as the graft source are scarce. This retrospective registry-based study examined data extracted from Eurocord and the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT) databases to evaluate outcomes of 247 UCBTs performed in EBMT transplant centers after GF following a previous HCT. Data were analyzed separately for patients with malignant diseases (n = 141) and those with nonmalignant diseases (n = 106). The most frequent HCT that resulted in GF was also UCBT (65.0% for patients with malignant diseases and 68.9% for those with nonmalignant diseases), and most GFs occurred within 100 days after transplantation (92.3% and 85.9%, respectively). The median follow-up was 47 months for surviving patients with malignant diseases and 38 months for those with nonmalignant diseases. We observed a similar cumulative incidence of neutrophil engraftment of 59.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 51.4% to 67.9%) and 60.4% (95% CI, 51.7%-70.6%), respectively, at a median time of 23 days and 24 days, correspondingly. The 3-year OS was 28.9% (95% CI, 21.8% to 37.3%) in the malignant disease group and 49.1% (95% CI, 39.5%-58.8%) in the nonmalignant disease group. In patients with malignancies, TRM was 39.9% (95% CI, 32.5% to 49.1%) at 100 days and 57.5% (95% CI, 49.4%-66.8%) at 3 years. In multivariate analyses, none of the characteristics studied was statistically significantly associated with engraftment or OS. Although survival is not optimal in patients requiring a second HCT, UCBT remains a valid life-saving option for patients with GF.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".