Long-term outcomes of patients surviving beyond 2 years post–allogeneic stem cell transplantation.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
6508 Background: Advances in hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) have been driven by progress in supportive care, conditioning regimens, and graft-versus-host disease (GvHD) prophylaxis. Post-transplant morbidity and mortality are most pronounced in the first two years after HCT. Long-term outcomes have been previously described in a CIBMTR study, which reported a 10-year survival of 85% for those who survived the first two years. Post-transplant cyclophosphamide (PTCy) has revolutionized transplant outcomes. However, its impact on long-term survival remains unclear. Methods: We included patients undergoing HSCT from Jan 2015 to Dec 2023 who were alive and without relapse two years after HSCT. We aimed to compare long-term outcomes in patients receiving PTCy-based GvHD prophylaxis to previous conventional GvHD prophylaxis strategies. Overall survival (OS) was calculated using the Kaplan–Meier method. The incidence of non‐relapse mortality (NRM) and relapse were estimated using Fine & Gray's competing risk analysis. Results: Of the 1,401 patients, we included 571 patients alive and relapse-free two years after HCT (Table 1). The median follow-up post-HSCT was 4.8 years (3-5.9). The 5-year OS was 91% (95% CI: 88 – 94). The causes of death were: disease recurrence (17, 3%), infection (8, 1.4%), GvHD (4, 0.7%), second primary malignancies (3, 0.5%), and cardiac complications (3, 0.5%). The use of PTCy was associated with improved OS, 91.7% (95% CI: 88 – 95) vs. 88.7% (95% CI: 81 – 93), p=0.05. NRM at 5 years was 4.9% (95% CI: 3 – 7) and was significantly lower in patients receiving PTCy (2.9 % vs. 10.4%, p<0.001). Relapse risk at 5 years was 9.2% (7 – 13) and was not significantly different between the groups, 10.6% in recipients of PTCy vs. 5.6%, p=0.06. On MVA accounting for confounding variables, PTCy was independently associated with improved OS [HR: 0.46 (0.2 – 0.8), p=0.01], and NRM [HR: 0.23 (0.1 – 0.5), p<0.001]. Age >60 years at HSCT was associated with increased mortality [HR: 2.8 (1.5 – 5.3), p=0.001]. The development of chronic GvHD was protective against relapse [HR: 0.5 (0.3 – 0.9), p=0.04] (Table 1). Conclusions: The long-term outcomes for patients alive and relapse-free 2 years after HSCT are excellent. Relapse remained the most common cause of death even after 2 years. PTCy-based GvHD prophylaxis was associated with improved NRM and OS without an impact on disease relapse. Baseline characteristics and multivariable analysis. PTCy Others p Age, years, median (IQR) 57 (40 – 64) 52 (37 – 62) 0.04 Diagnosis, n (%)AMLMDSMF 231 (54)57 (13)46 (11) 60 (43)19 (14)5 (4) 0.78 Donors, n (%)HLA-matched siblingHLA-matched unrelatedHLA-mismatched unrelatedHaploidentical 90 (21)220 (51)38 (9)84 (19) 69 (49)60 (43)8 (7)2 (1) <0.01 GVHD prophylaxis, n (%)CnI + MTXATG + CnI + MTXAlemtuzumab + CnIPTCy-ATG-CnIPTCy- CnI – MMF ---383 (89)48 (11) 43 (31)73 (52)24 (17)-- - Cryopreservation, n (%) 100 (23) 52 (36) 0.004 CD34 + x 10 6 /kg, median (IQR) 7.2 (6 – 8.1) 7.3 (5.9 – 7.6) 0.76 MVA OS HR 95% CI p Age >60 years (vs <60 years) 2.84 1.5 – 5.3 0.001 PTCy (vs non-PTCy) 0.45 0.2 – 0.8 0.01 NRM Age more than 60 years (vs <60 years) 2.50 1 – 6.2 0.04 PTCy (vs non-PTCy) 0.23 0.1 – 0.5 <0.01 Relapse Age >60 years (vs <60 years) 1.47 0.7 – 3.0 0.29 PTCy (vs non-PTCy) 1.54 0.4 – 5.4 0.49 <
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) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".