Autologous Stem Cell Transplant for HIV-Associated Lymphoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Despite improved outcomes with antiretroviral therapy, HIV-associated lymphoma (HAL) remains a major cause of mortality. Autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) may be curative for relapsed/refractory (R/R) HAL, but HIV-related immunosuppression complicates management. We systematically reviewed prospective evidence on ASCT efficacy and toxicity in HAL. Methods: PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for publications between 1 January 1996 and 21 June 2026, with an initial search in January 2024 updated in June 2026. Non-English studies, retrospective analyses, studies with fewer than 10 eligible patients, and studies of primary CNS lymphoma were excluded. Studies of first-line ASCT were included for toxicity analysis but excluded from efficacy analysis. Analyses were performed using MedCalc v22.032. Results: 378 titles were screened, 350 underwent abstract review and 40 full-text review. Six non-randomized prospective studies were identified. Identified trials included a total of 134 patients (33 Hodgkin lymphoma, 101 non-Hodgkin lymphoma). Median age and CD4 counts reported by individual studies ranged from 39 to 47 years and 172–279 cells/µL, respectively; 94.2% of patients were male. All patients received antiretroviral therapy at time of ASCT. Pooled six-month non-relapse mortality (NRM) was 5.39% (95% CI: 2.28–9.73). Among the 52 R/R HAL patients with survival data available, estimated 2-year overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were 79.8% (95% CI: 68.1–89.3) and 77.9% (95% CI: 65.9–87.8), respectively. Conclusions: In this first systematic review and meta-analysis of ASCT for HAL, NRM post-ASCT is consistent with historical trial results in the non-HIV population. OS and PFS are encouraging, but prospective data are limited and comparative data is absent.
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 | 0.010 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.029 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".