ArticleBone marrow transplantation2025
Real-world graft utilization after CTN-1101: a registry-based analysis of haploidentical graft versus umbilical cord blood trends.
Article in Bone marrow transplantation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Randomized clinical trials are expensive and not always practice changing. The Blood and Marrow Transplant Clinical Trials Network (CTN) 1101 trial (2012-2018) showed a lower two-year overall survival after umbilical cord blood (UCB) compared to haploidentical graft (haplo) transplants. To quantify the change in graft utilization after the trial's publication, a cohort of 11,190 U.S. adult HCT recipients selected with inclusion/exclusion criteria similar to CTN-1101's were analyzed across three time periods: 2010-2012 (pre-study), 2013-2018 (during-study), and 2019-2022 (post-study). We found a significant increase in haplo utilization compared to UCB, with the trend beginning around 2013. Compared to non-Hispanic White, Black recipients were more likely to receive haplo, Asian recipients were less likely, and Hispanic recipients had similar rates. We also expanded our analyses to 61,465 patients to assess haplo and UCB utilization compared to other allogeneic donors. In this cohort, utilization of alternative donor grafts increased when compared to HLA-matched related or unrelated donor grafts for Black, Hispanic, and Asian recipients. Our findings demonstrate practice change toward haplo transplants had begun before the CTN-1101 trial's publication and continued to significantly increase afterward. HLA-mismatched donors are vital alternative graft sources, allowing patients of all backgrounds to receive HCT.
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.