ArticleBone marrow transplantation2011
Use of intrathecal chemoprophylaxis in children after SCT and the risk of central nervous system relapse.
Article in Bone marrow transplantation, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Intrathecal CAR-NK cells infusion for isolated CNS relapse after allogeneic stem cell transplantation: case report.Stem cell research & therapy · 2023Article
- Comparison of central nervous system relapse outcomes following haploidentical vs identical-sibling transplant for acute lymphoblastic leukemia.Annals of hematology · 2020Article
- Safety of liposomal cytarabine CNS prophylaxis in children, adolescent and young adult hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients with acute leukemia and non-Hodgkin lymphoma.Bone marrow transplantation · 2016Article
- Factors predictive of relapse of acute leukemia in children after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation.Biology of blood and marrow transplantation : journal of the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Conflicting conclusions can be drawn from the available data concerning antileukemic efficacy and risks of intrathecal (i.t.) chemoprophylaxis to children after hematopoietic SCT (HSCT). To address this, we enrolled six transplantation centers with similar treatment and patient material. Of the 397 children included, 136 patients had received post-HSCT i.t. treatment (i.t. group) and 261 had not (non-i.t. group). The two groups were, apart from the i.t. therapy given or not given, at equal risk of post-HSCT central nervous system (CNS) relapse, which was the primary endpoint studied. Isolated CNS relapses were observed in 2 (1.5%) patients from the i.t. group and 2 (1%) from the non-i.t. group. Combined relapses, including CNS, involved 4 (3%) patients from the i.t. group and 6 (2%) from the non-i.t. group. Overall survival and the occurrence of neurological side effects did not differ significantly between the groups. There was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of isolated or mixed CNS relapses between the two groups, suggesting little or no benefit from i.t. therapy post-HSCT in children.
Indexed as
Identifiers
20498650What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.