Impact of graft‐versus‐host disease prophylaxis strategies on <scp>GvHD</scp> ‐free/relapse‐free survival in young adults undergoing unrelated donor allogeneic haematopoietic cell transplantation: A propensity score‐matched analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Young adults (YAs) undergoing allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) represent a unique population with distinct medical and psychosocial needs. Optimizing graft-versus-host disease (GvHD) prophylaxis in this population remains critical to improving outcomes. We performed a retrospective analysis of YAs undergoing unrelated donor HSCT using a contemporary Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) dataset. GvHD-free, relapse-free survival (GRFS) at 24 months was evaluated across three GvHD prophylaxis strategies: Group A (post-transplant cyclophosphamide [PTCy] + calcineurin inhibitor [CNI] + mycophenolate mofetil [MMF]), Group B (CNI + methotrexate [MTX]/MMF), and Group C (CNI + MTX/MMF + anti-thymocyte globulin [ATG]). A propensity score-matched (PSM) analysis was conducted to adjust for baseline differences. A total of 1387 YA patients were included. In the total cohort, 24-month GRFS was 58.9% (confidence intervals [95% CI], 53-64) in Group A, 32.2% (95% CI, 29-36) in Group B and 44.2% (95% CI, 39-49) in Group C (p < 0.001). On multivariable analysis (MVA), both Group A (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.44; 95% CI, 0.35-0.54) and Group C (HR = 0.79; 95% CI, 0.70-0.90) showed improved GRFS compared to Group B. In the propensity score-matched cohort, GRFS at 24 months remained higher in the PTCy group (58.2%, 95% CI, 52-64) versus the CNI-MTX/MMF ± ATG group (32.9%, 95% CI, 27-39; p < 0.001), with PTCy independently associated with improved GRFS (HR = 0.48; 95% CI, 0.40-0.60; p < 0.001). PTCy-based prophylaxis also reduced non-relapse mortality (NRM), with no significant differences in relapse or overall survival (OS) between groups. In this large, retrospective analysis, PTCy was associated with significantly improved GRFS and reduced NRM in YAs undergoing unrelated donor HSCT. These findings support the use of PTCy-based regimens in this population and warrant prospective evaluation.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".