ArticleBMC cancer2026
Haploidentical donor versus double-unit cord blood transplantation in hematologic malignancies: comparative survival and graft-versus-host disease outcomes from a decade of real-world experience.
Article in BMC cancer, 2026. 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAllogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) is a curative option for patients with hematologic malignancies, but the limited availability of HLA-matched sibling donors necessitates alternative graft sources. Haploidentical donors (HIDs) and double-unit umbilical cord blood (DUCB) are two widely used alternatives, yet direct comparisons of their clinical outcomes remain limited.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective single-center study of 97 patients with hematologic malignancies who underwent HSCT between August 2014 and May 2024. Patients received either HID transplantation (n = 57) or DUCB transplantation (n = 40). Hematopoietic recovery, graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), and long-term survival outcomes were assessed using cumulative incidence and Kaplan-Meier analyses, with multivariate Cox regression applied to identify prognostic factors.
resultsHID recipients achieved significantly faster neutrophil (median: 14.00 vs. 22.50 days) and platelet recovery (median: 15.00 vs. 44.50 days) than DUCB recipients (both P < 0.001). The incidence of grade II-IV acute GVHD (16.80% vs. 47.70%, P < 0.001) and chronic GVHD (10.30% vs. 28.60%, P = 0.033) was lower in the HID group, although severe grade III-IV aGVHD rates were comparable (13.00% vs. 23.90%, P = 0.160). Five-year overall survival (56.70% HID vs. 48.90% DUCB, P = 0.573), relapse-free survival (76.60% vs. 89.70%, P = 0.210), GVHD-free relapse-free survival (48.00% vs. 46.30%, P = 0.410), and non-relapse mortality (NRM) (35.40% vs. 47.00%, P = 0.188) did not differ significantly between groups.
conclusionBoth HID and DUCB transplantation are viable alternatives in the absence of an HLA-matched sibling donor. However, HID transplantation offers faster hematopoietic recovery and a reduced GVHD burden, which may provide practical clinical advantages when donor availability permits.
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.