ArticleTransplantation and cellular therapy2025
Choosing Between HLA-Mismatched Unrelated and Haploidentical Donors: Donor Age Considerations.
Article in Transplantation and cellular therapy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Phenotype-Specific Associations between Graft‑Versus‑Host Disease and Post‑Transplant Outcomes.Transplantation and cellular therapy · 2026Article
- Absolute risk trade-offs of donor age, sex, and graft source in PTCy-based transplantation.Blood advances · 2026Article
- Mismatched Unrelated vs Matched Related Donor Transplant With Posttransplant Cyclophosphamide Among Patients With Blood Cancers.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- Article
- Development and explainable AI-driven characterization of a prognostic model for haploidentical transplantation outcomes.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Peripheral Blood or Bone Marrow Grafts for Mismatched Unrelated Donors with Post-Transplantation Cyclophosphamide-Based Graft-versus-Host Disease Prophylaxis.Transplantation and cellular therapy · 2026Article
- Challenging a clinical dogma with multimodal machine learning: a retrospective analysis of transplant mismatched donor selection.Leukemia · 2026Article
- Donor-recipient age difference, not donor age alone, predicts outcomes in allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for aplastic anemia.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Article
- Donor selection, graft engineering, and dosing oh my!Hematology. American Society of Hematology. Education Program · 2025Review
- Future directions in transplantation for aplastic anemia.Hematology. American Society of Hematology. Education Program · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
22 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Haploidentical donors and HLA-mismatched unrelated donors (MMUDs) are increasingly utilized for hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT), with post-transplantation cyclophosphamide (PTCy) emerging as an effective graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis strategy. Despite the growing use of these donor types, comparative data to guide donor selection remain limited. Donor age is a known predictor of HCT outcomes, yet its specific impact when choosing between haploidentical and MMUD donors with PTCy-based prophylaxis has not been thoroughly explored. This study aimed to evaluate the influence of donor age on HCT outcomes in patients receiving haploidentical or MMUD HCT with PTCy-based GVHD prophylaxis, hypothesizing that younger donors (<30 years) would be associated with improved outcomes compared to older donors (≥30 years) regardless of donor type. We conducted a retrospective analysis of 7116 patients with hematologic malignancies from the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research database, transplanted between 2013 and 2021. Donors were categorized into four groups: younger haploidentical (<30 years), older haploidentical (≥30 years), younger MMUD (<30 years), and older MMUD (≥30 years). The primary outcome was GVHD-free relapse-free survival (GRFS), defined as the absence of grade III to IV acute GVHD, chronic GVHD requiring systemic immunosuppressive therapy (IST), relapse, or death. Secondary outcomes included overall survival, treatment-related mortality (TRM), relapse, grade III to IV acute GVHD, overall chronic GVHD, and chronic GVHD requiring IST. Comparisons were made between (1) younger MMUD versus older haploidentical and (2) younger haploidentical versus older MMUD groups using multivariable Cox proportional hazards models. In multivariable analysis, the older MMUD group exhibited inferior GRFS (hazard ratio [HR] 1.20; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.06 to 1.36; P = .003), higher TRM (HR 1.49; 95% CI, 1.13 to 1.96; P = .005), and increased grade III to IV acute GVHD (HR 2.88; 95% CI, 1.43 to 5.80; P = .003) compared to the younger haploidentical group. The younger MMUD group had modest GRFS improvement over the older haploidentical group (HR 0.87; 95% CI, 0.78 to 0.98; P = .02) and significantly reduced risks of grade II to IV acute GVHD (HR 0.67; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.88; P = .003) and chronic GVHD (HR 0.78; 95% CI, 0.65 to 0.94; P = .009). Younger donor age is associated with superior HCT outcomes, emphasizing the importance of prioritizing donors aged <30 years regardless of donor type when feasible.
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.