Characteristics of Graft-Versus-Host Disease (GvHD) After Post-Transplantation Cyclophosphamide Versus Conventional GvHD Prophylaxis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Post-transplantation cyclophosphamide (PTCy) has been shown to effectively control graft-versus-host disease (GvHD) in haploidentical (Haplo) transplantations. In this retrospective registry study, we compared GvHD organ distribution, severity, and outcomes in patients with GvHD occurring after Haplo transplantation with PTCy GvHD prophylaxis (Haplo/PTCy) versus HLA-matched unrelated donor transplantation with conventional prophylaxis (MUD/conventional). We evaluated 2 cohorts: patients with grade 2 to 4 acute GvHD (aGvHD) including 264 and 1163 recipients of Haplo and MUD transplants; and patients with any chronic GvHD (cGvHD) including 206 and 1018 recipients of Haplo and MUD transplants, respectively. In comparison with MUD/conventional transplantation ± antithymocyte globulin (ATG), grade 3-4 aGvHD (28% versus 39%, P = .001), stage 3-4 lower gastrointestinal (GI) tract aGvHD (14% versus 21%, P = .01), and chronic GI GvHD (21% versus 31%, P = .006) were less common after Haplo/PTCy transplantation. In patients with grade 2-4 aGvHD, cGvHD rate after Haplo/PTCY was also lower (hazard ratio [HR] = .4, P < .001) in comparison with MUD/conventional transplantation without ATG in the nonmyeloablative conditioning setting. Irrespective of the use of ATG, non-relapse mortality rate was lower (HR = .6, P = .01) after Haplo/PTCy transplantation, except for transplants that were from a female donor into a male recipient. In patients with cGvHD, irrespective of ATG use, Haplo/PTCy transplantation had lower non-relapse mortality rates (HR = .6, P = .04). Mortality rate was higher (HR = 1.6, P = .03) during, but not after (HR = .9, P = .6) the first 6 months after cGvHD diagnosis. Our results suggest that PTCy-based GvHD prophylaxis mitigates the development of GI GvHD and may translate into lower GvHD-related non-relapse mortality rate.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".