Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41526616›Full record

ArticleLeukemia2026

Modeling donor age and type trade-offs for personalized selection in allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation with post-transplant cyclophosphamide prophylaxis.

Rohtesh S Mehta, Yosra M Aljawai, Partow Kebriaei, Gabriela Rondon, Warren Fingrut, Portia Smallbone, Betul Oran, Amanda Olson, Richard E Champlin, Elizabeth J Shpall

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Leukemia, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Rohtesh S MehtaDepartment of Stem Cell Transplantation and Cellular Therapy, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA. rmehta1@mdanderson.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8532-544X
Yosra M AljawaiDepartment of Stem Cell Transplantation and Cellular Therapy, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1649-7651
Partow KebriaeiDepartment of Stem Cell Transplantation and Cellular Therapy, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8607-9404
Gabriela RondonDepartment of Stem Cell Transplantation and Cellular Therapy, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Warren FingrutDepartment of Stem Cell Transplantation and Cellular Therapy, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Portia SmallboneDepartment of Stem Cell Transplantation and Cellular Therapy, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0005-5524-5077
Betul OranDepartment of Stem Cell Transplantation and Cellular Therapy, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1264-5968
Amanda OlsonDepartment of Stem Cell Transplantation and Cellular Therapy, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1669-0355
Richard E ChamplinDepartment of Stem Cell Transplantation and Cellular Therapy, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4314-5037
Elizabeth J ShpallDepartment of Stem Cell Transplantation and Cellular Therapy, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The prevailing fixed-hierarchy approach to donor selection for allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) fails to capture critical interactions between donor age and type. We addressed this by analyzing 1713 adult recipients of matched related (MRD), matched unrelated (MUD), or haploidentical donors, receiving post-transplantation cyclophosphamide, using both regularized-Cox and XGBoost machine learning models. Our analysis revealed that the overall, independent association of donor age with survival was modest; however, its importance became pivotal within specific, context-dependent trade-offs. For example, while age-matched MRD and MUD were equivalent, a younger MUD was superior to an older MRD for elderly recipients. The survival advantage of MUD over haploidentical donors was consistent and magnified with increasing recipient age. We identified a non-linear relationship between baseline risk and the benefit of a matched versus a haploidentical donor; with the gain being maximal for intermediate-risk patients but attenuated in the highest-risk stratum. Our framework quantifies the gap that persists even between HLA-favorable haploidentical donors and matched donors. These findings provide a quantitative framework -the principles of which we have made explorable via an interactive web application -for a personalized, risk-adapted approach to donor selection. The clinical utility of this model must be confirmed in future validation studies.

Indexed as

CyclophosphamideDonor SelectionGraft vs Host DiseaseHematopoietic Stem Cell TransplantationTissue DonorsTransplantation ConditioningAdultAgedAge FactorsFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPrecision MedicineTransplantation, HomologousCyclophosphamide

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.