ArticleBone marrow transplantation2022
Impact of second-degree related donor on the outcomes of T cell-replete haploidentical transplantation with post-transplant cyclophosphamide.
Article in Bone marrow transplantation, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative outcomes of HSCT with posttransplant cyclophosphamide in older adults: the impact of donor type.Blood advances · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
33 authors at 10 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Donor selection may contribute to improve clinical outcomes of T cell-replete haploidentical stem cell transplantation (Haplo-SCT) with post-transplant cyclophosphamide (PT-Cy). Impact of second-degree related donor (SRD) was not fully elucidated in this platform. We retrospectively compared the outcome of patients receiving Haplo-SCT either from a SRD (n = 31) or a first-degree related donor (FRD, n = 957). Median time to neutrophil and platelet recovery did not differ between a SRD and a FRD transplant (p = 0.599 and 0.587). Cumulative incidence of grade II-IV acute graft-versus host disease (GVHD) and moderate-severe chronic GVHD was 13% and 19% after SRD vs 24% (p = 0.126) and 13% (p = 0.395) after FRD transplant. One-year cumulative incidence of non-relapse mortality (NRM) was 19% for SRD and 20% for FRD (p = 0.435) cohort. The 3-year probability of overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) was 42% vs 55% (p = 0.273) and 49% vs 35% (p = 0.280) after SRD and FRD transplant, respectively. After propensity score adjustment or matched pair analysis, the outcome of patients receiving Haplo-SCT from a SRD or a FRD did not differ in terms of NRM, OS, PFS, acute and chronic GVHD. Our results suggest that a SRD is a viable option for Haplo-SCT with PT-Cy when a FRD is not available.
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.