ArticleBlood advances2026
Matched unrelated vs haploidentical donor hematopoietic cell transplantation using posttransplant cyclophosphamide.
Article in Blood advances, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation for myelodysplastic syndrome in young adults: A retrospective study on behalf of the EBMT Chronic Malignancies Working Party.Bone marrow transplantation · 2026Article
- Real-World Analysis of Post-Transplant Cyclophosphamide on Allogeneic HCT Landscape.Transplantation and cellular therapy · 2026Article
- Optimal donor selection for transplant to reduce GVHD risk and augment graft-versus-malignancy efficacy.Current opinion in immunology · 2026Review
- Uncoupling toxicity from efficacy in donor selection for allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation: a retrospective cohort study using double machine learning.Journal of hematology & oncology · 2026Article
- Donor type outcomes in setting of PTCy: more apparent than real?Blood advances · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
Abstract
abstractPosttransplant cyclophosphamide (PTCy)-based graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis is now standard for matched unrelated donor (MUD) hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT). Previous studies comparing MUD and haploidentical donor HCT using PTCy were limited in size and follow-up. We therefore performed a registry-based analysis examining the impact of donor type on HCT with PTCy. Adult patients (n = 5873) receiving MUD (n = 1973) or haploidentical (n = 3900) HCT with PTCy for acute leukemia (74.2%) or myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS; 25.8%) reported to the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research between 2017 and 2021 were included. Primary end points were 3-year overall survival (OS) and GVHD-free, relapse-free survival (GRFS). Cox regression and sensitivity analyses were performed through adjustment of propensity scores. Haploidentical HCT had worse OS (hazard ratio [HR], 1.15; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04-1.27; P = .005) and GRFS (HR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.10-1.29; P < .001) versus MUD HCT. Donor age was the only other donor factor associated with survival. Results were confirmed in sensitivity analysis. When restricted to reduced intensity conditioning or donors <30 years, OS did not differ between groups. Haploidentical HCT was associated with higher primary graft failure (HR, 1.67; P = .002), increased grade 3/4 acute GVHD (HR, 1.28; P = .039), higher moderate/severe chronic GVHD (HR, 1.47; P < .001), and nonrelapse mortality (HR, 1.34; P < .001). Grade 2 to 4 acute GVHD and relapse risk did not differ. This large analysis showed that in adults with acute leukemia or MDS, MUD HCT was associated with improved outcomes versus haploidentical HCT with PTCy-based GVHD prophylaxis.
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.