ArticleTransplantation and cellular therapy2024
Comparison of Vital Status, Cause of Death, and Follow-Up after Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation in Linked Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research and California Cancer Registry Data, 1991 to 2018.
Article in Transplantation and cellular therapy, 2024. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Innovation in active and passive immunisation of people who are immunocompromised: a call to action.The Lancet. Infectious diseases · 2026Review
- Real-world clinical outcomes of autologous stem cell transplantation in Chinese patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: a systematic literature review.Therapeutic advances in hematology · 2026Review
- Article
- Cumulative incidence estimates for solid tumors after HCT in the CIBMTR and California Cancer Registry.Blood advances · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Assessing outcomes following hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) poses challenges due to the necessity for systematic and often prolonged patient follow-up. Linking the HCT database of the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) with cancer registry data may improve long-term outcome ascertainment, but the reliability of mortality data in death certificates from cancer registries among HCT recipients remains unknown. We compared the classification of vital status and primary cause of death (COD), as well as the length of follow-up between the CIBMTR and California Cancer Registry (CCR) to assess the possibility of supplementing the CIBMTR with cancer registry data. This retrospective study leveraged a linked CIBMTR-CCR dataset. We included patients who were California residents at the time of HCT and received a first allogeneic (allo) or autologous (auto) HCT for a hematologic malignancy diagnosed during 1991-2016. Follow-up was through 2018. We analyzed 18,450 patients (alloHCT, n = 8232; autoHCT, n = 10,218). The Vital status agreement was 97.7% for alloHCT and 97.2% for autoHCT. Unknown COD was higher in CIBMTR (12.9%) than in CCR (1.6%). After excluding patients with unknown COD information, the overall agreement of primary COD (cancer versus noncancer) was 53.7% for alloHCT and 83.2% for autoHCT. This agreement was lower within the first 100 days post-HCT (alloHCT, 31.0%; autoHCT, 54.6%). Compared with CIBMTR, deaths due to cancer were higher in CCR (alloHCT, 90.0%; autoHCT, 90.1% versus alloHCT, 47.3%; autoHCT, 82.5% in CIBMTR). CIBMTR reports more frequently noncancer-related deaths, including graft-versus-host disease and infections. The cumulative incidence of cancer-specific mortality at 20 years differed, particularly for alloHCT (CCR, 53.7%; CIBMTR, 27.6%). The median follow-up among alive patients was longer in CCR (alloHCT, 6.0 years; autoHCT, 4.7 years) than in CIBMTR (alloHCT, 5.0 years; autoHCT, 3.8 years). Our findings highlight the completeness of vital status data in CIBMTR but reveal substantial disagreement in primary COD. Consequently, caution is required when interpreting HCT studies that use only death certificates to estimate cause-specific mortality outcomes. Improving the accuracy of COD registration and follow-up completeness by developing communication pathways between cancer registries and hospital-based cohorts may enhance our understanding of late effects and long-term outcomes among HCT survivors.
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.