Outcome of Haploidentical Peripheral Blood Allografts Using Post-Transplantation Cyclophosphamide Compared to Matched Sibling and Unrelated Donor Bone Marrow Allografts in Pediatric Patients with Hematologic Malignancies: A Single-Center Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The introduction of post-transplantation cyclophosphamide (PTCy) as graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis has made haploidentical (haplo) hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) a common approach in adults, but pediatric experience is limited. Based on the encouraging adult data and with the aim of decreasing the risk of graft failure, our center is increasingly using peripheral blood stem cells (PBSCs) from haplo donors with PTCy. Here we compare outcomes of bone marrow (BM) transplantation with traditional donor choices, including matched sibling donors (MSDs) and 10/10 HLA matched unrelated donors (MUDs), with those of haplo PBSC grafts in pediatric patients with hematologic malignancies. In this retrospective single-center study, the primary endpoint was the comparison of GVHD-free relapse-free survival (GRFS; defined as absence of acute GVHD [aGVHD] grade III-IV, relapse, death, or chronic GVHD [cGVHD] requiring systemic therapy) for the 3 cohorts. Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), relapse-free survival (RFS), nonrelapse mortality (NRM), and incidence of aGVHD and cGVHD). A total of 104 consecutive patients underwent first allogeneic (allo)-HSCT for a hematologic malignancy or myelodysplastic syndrome between January 2014 and December 2020 using a haplo family donor (PBSCs; n = 26), an MSD (BM; n = 31), or an MUD (BM; n = 47). Patient demographic and transplantation characteristics were not significantly different across the cohorts, apart from remission status, with the haplo cohort having more patients in third or later complete remission before HSCT (P < .01). The median duration of follow-up for the entire cohort was 573 days. The cumulative incidence of aGVHD (grade II-IV or grade III-IV) was not significantly different among the cohorts; however, the cumulative incidence of cGVHD at 18 months was highest in the MUD cohort (31.7%, versus 10.0% in the MSD cohort and 9.2% in the haplo cohort; P = .02). There were no differences in the 18-month cumulative incidence of relapse or NRM. OS and RFS at 18 months were 80.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 61.7% to 100%) and 73.8% (95% CI, 55.5% to 98.1%) for the haplo cohort, 83.4% (95% CI, 72.8% to 95.5%) and 70.3% (95% CI, 57.9% to 85.3%) for the MUD cohort, and 80.9% (95% CI, 66.9% to 97.7%) and 66.5% (95% CI, 50.5% to 87.5%) for the MSD cohort, with no statistically significant differences among the cohorts. GRFS at 18 months was 61% (95% CI, 43.3% to 85.9%) for the haplo cohort, 44.6% (95% CI, 31.8% to 62.5%) for the MUD cohort, and 62.1% (95% CI, 45.7% to 84.3%) for the MSD cohort (P = .26). Haploidentical PBSC HSCT with PTCy had comparable outcomes to MSD and MUD BM HSCT and less cGVHD compared with MUD BM HSCT in children. The logistical advantages and lower resource burden of haplo HSCT with PBSCs make it a feasible alternative to MUD HSCT in children with hematologic malignancies. Given that this is a retrospective comparison of transplantation platforms rather than donor types, further prospective studies are warranted. © 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".