ArticleTransplantation and cellular therapy2026
Donor Search and Selection Strategy to Facilitate Comparable Transplant Rates across Donor Search Prognosis Groups: A Report from the BMT CTN 1702 Trial.
Article in Transplantation and cellular therapy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
28 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In a secondary analysis from the BMT CTN 1702 trial, we report on donor search and selection strategies according to baseline recipient search prognosis (SP). A total of 1751 patients in 3 SP groups-very likely, 958; less likely, 517; very unlikely, 276- were analyzed. The target time to HCT was most often 6 to 12 weeks (SP P = nonsignificant) and was associated with acute myelogenous leukemia remission status (P < .01). The baseline preferred alternative donor (across all SP groups was most commonly a haploidentical (haplo) donor (62.2% overall), whereas the use of mismatched unrelated donors (MMUDs) increased over time during the study period. Those in the less/very unlikely groups prioritized more alternative donor types at baseline and had more priority ranking changes (SP P < .01). While a comparable number of donors were typed (all SP: median, 3 donors; median time, 1.1 months), less/very unlikely SP had greater use of alternative donors (SP P < .01). Reasons for nonselection of typed donors varied by SP group. For less/very unlikely SP, the rates of HLA mismatching and donor-specific antibodies were higher, while for very likely SP, the use of other preferred donors was more common. Of 1751, 65% reached HCT: 94% of the very likely had an 8/8 matched unrelated donor (MUD) and 91% of the very unlikely had an alternative donor (haplo, 61%; MMUD, 22%; umbilical cord blood, 8%). HCT occurred within the initial desired timeline in 38% of all subjects. HCT delays occurred in 29%, mostly for disease or patient health overall, and of these 52% reached HCT after delay. In this prospective, multicenter evaluation of donor search and selection practices, we demonstrate that patients with poor likelihood of 8/8 MUD matching can reach HCT at comparable rates and with similar effort (time spent typing, number of donors typed) using an early alternative donor-centered strategy. Uniformly across SP groups, the target time to HCT is not commonly reached and is disrupted mostly by disease/patient health delays and not by donor unavailability.
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.