Impact of Donor Age on Allogeneic Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation Outcomes in Older Adults with Acute Myeloid Leukemia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (alloHCT) provides cure for older patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML); however, disease relapse remains a major concern. Based on recent data suggesting that younger donor age confers the greatest benefit for alloHCT with matched unrelated donors (MUDs), we attempted to answer a practical question: which donor type provides the best outcomes when an older patient with AML has a matched sibling donor (MSD, also older) versus the best MUD? This retrospective cohort registry study accessed data from the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) in patients with AML age ≥ 50 years undergoing alloHCT from older MSDs (age ≥ 50 years) or younger MUDs (age ≤ 35 years) between 2011 and 2018. The study included common allograft types, conditioning regimens, and graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis. The primary outcome was relapse risk. Secondary outcomes included nonrelapse mortality (NRM), GVHD, disease-free survival (DFS), and overall survival. Among 4684 eligible patients, 1736 underwent alloHCT with an older MSD (median donor age, 60 years), and 2948 underwent alloHCT from a younger MUD (median donor age, 25 years). In multivariable analysis, compared to older MSDs, the use of younger MUDs conferred a decreased relapse risk (hazard ratio [HR], .86; P = .005) and a significantly lower adjusted 5-year cumulative incidence of relapse (35% versus 41%; P = .003), but was associated with an increased risk for chronic GVHD (HR, 1.18; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.08 to 1.29; P = .0002) and greater NRM only in the earlier period of 2011 to 2015 (HR, 1.24; P = .016). The corresponding NRM rates were significantly lower in the more recent period of 2016 to 2018 (HR, .78; P = .017). The adjusted 5-year DFS probability was 44% (95% CI, 42% to 46%) with an alloHCT from younger MUDs compared to 41% (95% CI, 38% to 43%) with older MSDs (P = .04). In summary, for older patients with AML undergoing alloHCT, the use of younger MUDs is associated with decreased relapse risk and improved DFS compared with the use of older MSDs.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".