3.8 Article

Optimal Donor Selection for Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation Using Bayesian Machine Learning

期刊

JCO CLINICAL CANCER INFORMATICS
卷 5, 期 -, 页码 494-507

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1200/CCI.20.00185

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. US Office of Naval Research [N00014-18-1-2888]
  2. Advancing a Healthier Wisconsin Endowment at the Medical College of Wisconsin
  3. Public Health Service from National Cancer Institute (NCI) [U24CA076518]
  4. Public Health Service from National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI) [U24CA076518]
  5. Public Health Service from National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) [U24CA076518]
  6. Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) [HHSH250201700006C, SC1MC31881-01-00, HHSH250201700007C]
  7. Office of Naval Research [N00014-18-1-2888, N00014-18-1-2850, N00014-20-1-2705]
  8. BARDA
  9. Be the Match Foundation
  10. Boston Children's Hospital
  11. Dana Farber
  12. Japan Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation Data Center
  13. St Baldrick's Foundation
  14. National Marrow Donor Program
  15. Medical College of Wisconsin
  16. AbbVie
  17. Actinium Pharmaceuticals Inc
  18. Adaptive Biotechnologies
  19. Adienne SA
  20. Allovir Inc
  21. Amgen Inc
  22. Angiocrine Bioscience
  23. Anthem Inc
  24. Astellas Pharma US
  25. AstraZeneca
  26. Atara Biotherapeutics Inc
  27. bluebird bio Inc
  28. Bristol Myers Squibb Co
  29. Celgene Corp
  30. CSL Behring
  31. CytoSen Therapeutics Inc
  32. Daiichi Sankyo Co, Ltd
  33. Gamida-Cell, Ltd
  34. Genzyme
  35. HistoGenetics Inc
  36. Incyte Corporation
  37. Janssen Biotech Inc
  38. Janssen/Johnson Johnson
  39. Jazz Pharmaceuticals Inc
  40. Kiadis Pharma
  41. Kite, a Gilead Company
  42. Kyowa Kirin
  43. Legend Biotech
  44. Magenta Therapeutics
  45. Mallinckrodt LLC
  46. Medac GmbH
  47. Merck Company Inc
  48. Merck Sharp Dohme Corp
  49. Millennium, the Takeda Oncology Co
  50. Miltenyi Biotec Inc
  51. Novartis Oncology
  52. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation
  53. Omeros Corporation
  54. Oncoimmune Inc
  55. OptumHealth
  56. Orca Biosystems Inc
  57. Pfizer Inc
  58. Pharmacyclics, LLC
  59. REGiMMUNE Corp
  60. Sanofi Genzyme
  61. Shire
  62. Sobi Inc
  63. Takeda Pharma
  64. Terumo BCT
  65. Viracor Eurofins
  66. Xenikos BV
  67. NHLBI [R21HL140314, U01HL128568, U24HL138660]
  68. NCI [U24HL138660]
  69. [P01CA111412]
  70. [R01CA152108]
  71. [R01CA215134]
  72. [R01CA218285]
  73. [R01CA231141]
  74. [R01AI128775]
  75. [R01HL129472]
  76. [R01HL130388]
  77. [R01HL131731]
  78. [U01AI069197]
  79. [U01AI126612]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study confirmed the importance of selecting the youngest available MUD for HCT, regardless of patient features. Age was the only donor feature that affected outcomes consistently. By choosing a younger MUD, there is potential for improvement in transplant outcomes.
PURPOSE Donor selection practices for matched unrelated donor (MUD) hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) vary, and the impact of optimizing donor selection in a patient-specific way using modern machine learning (ML) models has not been studied. METHODS We trained a Bayesian ML model in 10,318 patients who underwent MUD HCT from 1999 to 2014 to provide patient- and donor-specific predictions of clinically severe (grade 3 or 4) acute graft-versus-host disease or death by day 180. The model was validated in 3,501 patients from 2015 to 2016 with archived records of potential donors at search. Donor selection optimizing predicted outcomes was implemented over either an unlimited donor pool or the donors in the search archives. Posterior mean differences in outcomes from optimal donor selection versus actual practice were summarized per patient and across the population with 95% intervals. RESULTS Event rates were 33% (training) and 37% (validation). Among donor features, only age affected outcomes, with the effect consistent regardless of patient features. The median (interquartile range) difference in age between the youngest donor at search and the selected donor was 6 (1-10) years, whereas the number of donors per patient younger than the selected donor was 6 (1-36). Fourteen percent of the validation data set had an approximate 5% absolute reduction in event rates from selecting the youngest donor at search versus the actual donor used, leading to an absolute population reduction of 1% (95% interval, 0 to 3). CONCLUSION We confirmed the singular importance of selecting the youngest available MUD, irrespective of patient features, identified potential for improved HCT outcomes by selecting a younger MUD, and demonstrated use of novel ML models transferable to optimize other complex treatment decisions in a patient-specific way.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据