ArticleAmerican journal of hematology2025
Different impacts of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor administration on allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant outcomes for adult acute myeloid leukemia according to graft type.
Article in American journal of hematology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Different impacts of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor administration on allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant outcomes for adult acute myeloid leukemia according to graft type.American journal of hematology · 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
25 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We retrospectively evaluated the impacts of using granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) and its timing on posttransplant outcomes for 9766 adults with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) between 2013 and 2022 using a Japanese database. We separately evaluated three distinct cohorts based on graft type: 3248 received bone marrow transplantation (BMT), 3066 received peripheral blood stem cell transplantation (PBSCT), and 3452 received single-unit cord blood transplantation (CBT). Multivariate analysis showed that G-CSF administration significantly accelerated neutrophil recovery after BMT, PBSCT, and CBT. However, it was associated with a higher risk of grades II-IV acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) across all graft types. Moreover, an increased incidence of overall chronic GVHD was observed with G-CSF administration in BMT and CBT patients, but not in PBSCT patients. G-CSF administration significantly improved overall survival (OS) and leukemia-free survival (LFS) only following CBT. Regarding the timing of G-CSF, in comparison with late initiation of G-CSF (Days 5-10), early initiation (Days 0-4) did not provide benefits for hematopoietic recovery regardless of graft type. In contrast, late initiation was significantly associated with a lower risk of grades II-IV acute GVHD and better OS and LFS in CBT patients. These data demonstrated that G-CSF administration accelerated neutrophil recovery and increased the risk of grades II-IV acute GVHD across all graft types, but significantly improved survival outcomes but only following CBT. Therefore, routine use of G-CSF should be considered for CBT in adult patients with AML.
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.