ArticleEuropean journal of haematology2025
Reduced Intensity Conditioning Prior Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation in Elderly DLBCL Patients.
Article in European journal of haematology, 2025. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
High-dose chemotherapy (HDCT) followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) is widely used in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. HDCT/ASCT is associated with increased morbidity in elderly/unfit patients. We retrospectively evaluated the use of reduced intensity conditioning in DLBCL patients. Our study included 146 patients aged 60 years and older treated at our institution between 2005 and 2019; 86 patients received standard intensity conditioning (SI group) with BEAM or TEAM (BCNU or thiotepa, etoposide, cytarabine, melphalan). Sixty patients received reduced intensity high-dose conditioning (RI group) with BM (BCNU, melphalan, 43.3%), TM (thiotepa, melphalan, 16.7%), BCNU or busulfan thiotepa (38.4%), or bendamustine melphalan (1.7%). Median follow-up was 62.4 months. We observed comparable toxicities in the SI and RI groups. The cumulative incidence of relapse at 3 years was higher in the RI group (30.8% vs. 23.4%, p = 0.034). There was no difference in nonrelapse mortality (NRM). In univariate analyses, SI vs. RI conditioning resulted in superior progression-free survival (PFS) (HR 1.80 CI 1.11-2.92, p = 0.017) but not in superior overall survival (OS) (HR 1.48 CI 0.86-2.56, p = 0.152). On multivariate analysis, we observed no difference in PFS (HR 0.74 CI 0.40-1.38, p = 0.345) and a trend toward better OS with RI conditioning (HR 0.45 CI 0.22-0.94, p = 0.032). Age 60-69 versus ≥ 70 years and remission prior to ASCT were the only factors predicting better PFS. Factors associated with better OS were RI conditioning, age 60-69 versus ≥ 70 years, ECOG 0 versus ≥ 1 performance status, bulky disease, and prior lines 1 versus ≥ 2. In conclusion, RI conditioning prior to ASCT may be feasible in elderly patients and led to a comparable outcome when corrected for several significant confounders.
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.