Propensity Score Matching Analysis Comparing the Efficacy and Steroid Tapering Benefit of Extracorporeal Photopheresis to Best Available Therapy in Third-Line or Beyond Treatment for Chronic GvHD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Graft-versus host disease (GVHD) is one of the major limitations to allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HCT). Although corticosteroids with calcineurin inhibitors are established first line-therapy for chronic graft-versus-host disease (cGVHD), approximately one-half of cGVHD patients are refractory to corticosteroid therapy. The goal of the present study was to compare treatment outcomes of patients treated with extracorporeal photopheresis (ECP) and best available therapy (BAT) as third-line or beyond treatment for cGVHD. Using propensity score matching (PSM), treatment outcomes were compared between ECP-treated patients (n = 74) and a historical cohort of cGVHD patients treated with BAT (n = 132). By adjusting for unbalanced risk factors between the groups, including GVHD severity at the start of therapy, acute GVHD history, and baseline corticosteroid dose, 62 patients were balanced and selected for PSM. In the PSM cohort, the ECP group showed a 12-month failure-free survival (FFS) rate of 70.1% versus 32.5% in the BAT group (P < .0001; hazard rate [HR], .214), and 93.1% 12 months' overall survival (OS) rate of 93.1% versus 68.1% in the BAT group (P = .0249; HR, .3811); multivariate analysis confirmed ECP's superior FFS and OS compared with BAT. Generalized linear model analysis showed faster tapering of corticosteroids and higher rates of prednisone discontinuation in the ECP versus BAT PSM groups in the first 6 months. The ECP group also had a higher percentage of prednisone discontinuation, by 6% at month 0, by 14.9% at month 3, and by 22.5% at month 6. The current study demonstrates superior FFS, OS, and steroid tapering efficacy for ECP compared with BAT as third-line therapy or beyond in cGVHD patients.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".