Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40513032›Full record

Trial reportThe New England journal of medicine2025

Graft-versus-Host Disease Prophylaxis with Cyclophosphamide and Cyclosporin.

David J Curtis, Sushrut S Patil, John Reynolds, Duncan Purtill, Clinton Lewis, David S Ritchie, David J Gottlieb, David T Yeung, Eric Wong, Siok-Keen Tey and 10 more

Abstract readClinical Trial, Phase IIIComparative StudyMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in The New England journal of medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

36 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Chronic graft-versus-host disease.Nature reviews. Disease primers · 2026
    Review
  19. Decoding TNF receptor superfamily control of CD4Cell communication and signaling : CCS · 2026
    Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

20 authors.

David J CurtisClinical Haematology, Alfred Health, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-9497-0996
Sushrut S PatilClinical Haematology, Alfred Health, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
John ReynoldsClinical Haematology, Alfred Health, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Duncan PurtillHaematology Service, Fiona Stanley Hospital-PathWest Laboratory Medicine, Perth, WA, Australia.
Clinton LewisHaematology, Auckland City Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand.
David S RitchieClinical Haematology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre and Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
David J GottliebBlood Transplant and Cell Therapies Program, Westmead Hospital, Sydney.
David T YeungHaematology, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Eric WongHaematology, Austin Health, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Siok-Keen TeyHaematology and Bone Marrow Transplantation, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Travis PereraHaematology, Wellington Blood and Cancer Centre, Wellington, New Zealand.
John MooreHaematology, St. Vincent's Health Network, Sydney.
Rachel M KoldejAustralian Cancer Research Foundation Translational Research Laboratory, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Richard De Abreu LourencoCentre for Health Economics Research and Evaluation, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney.
John StubbsAustralasian Leukaemia and Lymphoma Group, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
C Orla MorrisseyDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Alfred Health and Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Nadia MunsefAustralasian Leukaemia and Lymphoma Group, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Andrea ArenasAustralasian Leukaemia and Lymphoma Group, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Geoffrey R HillUniversity of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
Australasian Leukaemia and Lymphoma Group

Funding

VIRUS-MEDIATED MYELOSUPPRESSIONP01CA018029 · NCI · FRED HUTCHINSON CANCER RESEARCH CENTER · PI Evan Newell · 1985 to 2026
$128.4M
Auckland Medical Research Foundation 2121002Australian Government Lifting Clinical Trials and Registries Capacity APCancer Society of New Zealand 20.01NCI NIH HHS P01 CA018029
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAllogeneic peripheral-blood stem-cell transplantation (SCT) from a matched related donor after myeloablative conditioning is the preferred curative treatment for patients with high-risk blood cancers. The combination of a calcineurin inhibitor and an antimetabolite remains standard care for graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis in these patients. Data from two randomized trials have suggested that post-transplantation cyclophosphamide can reduce the risk of GVHD after SCT from a matched donor when it is added to or replaces the antimetabolite. However, the effects of post-transplantation cyclophosphamide specifically after SCT from a matched related donor remain uncertain, and effects in the context of myeloablative conditioning are unclear.

methodsWe randomly assigned adults who were undergoing SCT from a matched related donor after myeloablative or reduced-intensity conditioning to receive either post-transplantation cyclophosphamide-cyclosporin (experimental prophylaxis) or cyclosporin-methotrexate (standard prophylaxis). The primary end point was GVHD-free, relapse-free survival.

resultsAmong 134 patients who underwent randomization, 66 were assigned to receive experimental prophylaxis and 68 to receive standard prophylaxis. GVHD-free, relapse-free survival was significantly longer with experimental prophylaxis (median, 26.2 months; 95% confidence interval [CI], 9.1 to not reached) than with standard prophylaxis (median, 6.4 months; 95% CI, 5.6 to 8.3; P<0.001 by a log-rank test). GVHD-free, relapse-free survival at 3 years was 49% (95% CI, 36 to 61) with experimental prophylaxis and 14% (95% CI, 6 to 25) with standard prophylaxis (hazard ratio for GVHD, relapse, or death, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.27 to 0.66). The cumulative incidence of grade III to IV acute GVHD at 3 months was 3% (95% CI, 1 to 10) in the experimental-prophylaxis group and 10% (95% CI, 4 to 19) in the standard-prophylaxis group. At 2 years, overall survival was 83% and 71%, respectively (hazard ratio for death, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.29 to 1.19). The incidence of serious adverse events was similar in the two groups in the first 100 days after SCT.

conclusionsThe combination of post-transplantation cyclophosphamide and a calcineurin inhibitor led to longer GVHD-free, relapse-free survival than standard prophylaxis after transplantation from a matched related donor with either reduced-intensity or myeloablative conditioning in patients with blood cancers. (Funded by the Australian Government Medical Research Future Fund and others; ALLG BM12 CAST Australian-New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry number, ACTRN12618000505202.).

Indexed as

CyclophosphamideCyclosporineGraft vs Host DiseaseHematologic NeoplasmsPeripheral Blood Stem Cell TransplantationAdultAgedCalcineurin InhibitorsDisease-Free SurvivalDrug Therapy, CombinationFemaleHumansImmunosuppressive AgentsKaplan-Meier EstimateMaleMethotrexateCalcineurin InhibitorsCyclophosphamideCyclosporineImmunosuppressive AgentsMethotrexate

Identifiers

PMID40513032
PMCPMC13186568

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.