Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42525122›Full record

ArticleAnnals of hematology2026

Reinterpreting the matched-sibling relapse penalty in ATG-based allogeneic transplantation for myelodysplastic neoplasms: a question of dose, not donor.

Naif I AlJohani

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of hematology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

1 author.

Naif I AlJohaniAdult Hematology and Stem Cell Transplantation Section, Oncology Department, King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Centre, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. naljohani@kfshrc.edu.sa.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4426-9434

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Park and colleagues recently reported, in a single-centre Korean cohort of 391 adult patients with myelodysplastic neoplasms (MDS) receiving fludarabine-busulfan conditioning and antithymocyte globulin (ATG)-based prophylaxis, that matched sibling donor (MSD) recipients experienced a substantially higher 5-year cumulative incidence of relapse (34.3%) than recipients of unrelated (UD; 16.4%) or haploidentical (HID; 16.8%) donors, with reduced acute and chronic graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) in the MSD arm. The authors conclude that under ATG-based prophylaxis, MSD may no longer be the optimal donor choice in MDS. We respectfully argue that this conclusion is constrained by two structural features of the cohort. First, ATG dose is severely confounded with donor type: 61.3% of MSD recipients received 10 mg/kg ATG versus 0% of HID recipients, a dose pattern that inverts standard clinical practice and overlaps a range in which independent evidence indicates impaired disease control without offsetting GVHD benefit. Second, the GVHD- non-relapse mortality pattern in the cohort is more consistent with a cumulative immunosuppression-intensity hypothesis than with a primary donor-source effect. We propose that the most clinically actionable inference is to re-examine ATG dosing in MSD transplants for MDS, rather than to displace MSD as a preferred donor.

Indexed as

Antilymphocyte SerumHematopoietic Stem Cell TransplantationMyelodysplastic SyndromesSiblingsTransplantation ConditioningGraft vs Host DiseaseHumansRecurrenceTransplantation, HomologousAntilymphocyte SerumAllogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantationAntithymocyte globulinConfounding by indicationDonor selectionGraft-versus-leukemiaMyelodysplastic neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID42525122
PMCPMC13421350

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.