ArticleTransplantation and cellular therapy2022
Post-Transplantation Cyclophosphamide-Based Graft- versus-Host Disease Prophylaxis with Nonmyeloablative Conditioning for Blood or Marrow Transplantation for Myelofibrosis.
Article in Transplantation and cellular therapy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of Donor Type on Outcomes After Allogeneic Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation in Myelofibrosis: A Study on Behalf of the Chronic Malignancies Working Party of the EBMT.American journal of hematology · 2025Article
- SOHO State of the Art Updates and Next Questions | Challenging Scenarios in the Management of Myeloproliferative Neoplasms.Clinical lymphoma, myeloma & leukemia · 2025Review
- Allogeneic Stem Cell Transplant for Myelofibrosis and Myelodysplastic Syndromes: A Contemporary Review.American journal of hematology · 2025Review
- Prevention and treatment of transformation of myeloproliferative neoplasms to acute myeloid leukemia.Haematologica · 2025Review
- Optimization of allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation for patients with myelofibrosis treated with ruxolitinib: eligibility, best practices, and improving transplant outcomes.Annals of hematology · 2025Review
- Role of molecular alterations in transplantation decisions for patients with primary myelofibrosis.Blood advances · 2025Article
- Myelofibrosis: Timing of Transplantation and Management of Splenomegaly.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2025Review
- Donor types and outcomes of transplantation in myelofibrosis: a CIBMTR study.Blood advances · 2024Article
- Outcome heterogeneity ofHaematologica · 2024Article
- Myelofibrosis and allogeneic transplantation: critical points and challenges.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Review
- Haploidentical donor hematopoietic cell transplantation for myelodysplastic/myeloproliferative overlap neoplasms: results from a North American collaboration.Haematologica · 2023Article
- The development of post-transplant cyclophosphamide: Half a century of translational team science.Blood reviews · 2023Review
- A simple prognostic system in patients with myelofibrosis undergoing allogeneic stem cell transplantation: a CIBMTR/EBMT analysis.Blood advances · 2023Article
- Haploidentical Donor Blood or Marrow Transplantation for Myelodysplastic/Myeloproliferative Overlap Neoplasms: Results from a North American Collaboration.Research square · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
27 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
We describe outcomes after post-transplantation cyclophosphamide and nonmyeloablative conditioning-based allogeneic blood or marrow transplantation for myelofibrosis using matched or mismatched related or unrelated donors. The conditioning regimen consisted of fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and total body irradiation. Forty-two patients were included, with a median age of 63 years, of whom 19% had Dynamic International Prognostic Scoring System (DIPSS)-plus intermediate-1 risk, 60% had intermediate-2 risk, and 21% had high-risk disease, and 60% had at least 1 high-risk somatic mutation. More than 90% of patients engrafted neutrophils, at a median of 19.5 days, and 7% experienced graft failure. At 1 year and 3 years, respectively, overall survival was 65% and 60%, relapse-free survival was 65% and 31%, relapse was 5% and 40%, and nonrelapse mortality was 30% and 30%. Acute graft-versus-host disease grade 3-4 was seen in 17% of patients at 1 year, and chronic graft-versus-host disease requiring systemic therapy in occurred in 12% patients. Spleen size ≥17 cm or prior splenectomy was associated with inferior relapse-free survival (hazard ratio [HR], 3.50; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.18 to 10.37; P = .02) and higher relapse rate (subdistribution HR [SDHR] not calculable; P = .01). Age >60 years (SDHR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.08 to 0.80, P = .02) and receipt of peripheral blood grafts (SDHR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.11 to 0.99; P = .05) were associated with a lower risk of relapse. In our limited sample, the presence of a high-risk mutation was not statistically significantly associated with an inferior outcome, although ASXL1 was suggestive of inferior survival (SDHR, 2.36; 95% CI, 0.85 to 6.6; P = .09). Overall, this approach shows outcomes comparable those of to previously reported approaches and underscores the importance of spleen size in the evaluation of transplantation candidates.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.