4.7 Article

Chronic GVHD risk score: a Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research analysis

期刊

BLOOD
卷 117, 期 24, 页码 6714-6720

出版社

AMER SOC HEMATOLOGY
DOI: 10.1182/blood-2010-12-323824

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Cancer Institute (NCI) [U24-CA76518]
  2. National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI) [5U01HL069294]
  3. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID)
  4. Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA/DHHS) [HHSH234200637015C]
  5. Office of Naval Research [N00014-06-1-0704, N00014-08-1-0058]
  6. AABB
  7. Allos Inc
  8. Amgen Inc

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Several risk factors are associated with increased mortality in patients with chronic graft-versus-host disease (cGVHD), but there is considerable variability in the reported factors. Therefore, we evaluated patient, transplantation, and cGVHD characteristics to develop a risk score in 5343 patients with cGVHD. Ten variables were identified as being significant in multivariate analysis of overall survival and nonrelapse mortality (NRM): age, prior acute GVHD, time from trans-plantation to cGVHD, donor type, disease status at transplantation, GVHD prophylaxis, gender mismatch, serum bilirubin, Karnofsky score, and platelet count. These 10 variables were used to build a cGVHD risk score, and 6 risk groups (RGs) were identified. The 5-year NRM was 5% (1%-9%) in RG1, 20% (19%-23%) in RG2, 33% (29%-37%) in RG3, 43% (40%-46%) in RG4, 63% (53%-74%) in RG5, and 72% (59%-85%) in RG6. The 5-year overall survival was highest at 91% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 85%-97%) in RG1, followed by 67% (65%-69%) in RG2, 51% (46%-55%) in RG3, 40% (37%-43%) in RG4, 21% (12%-30%) in RG5, and 4% (0%-9%) in RG6 (all P < .01). This analysis demonstrates the usefulness of data from a large registry to develop risk-score categories for major transplantation outcomes. Validation of this cGVHD risk score is needed in a different population to ensure its broad applicability. (Blood. 2011;117(24):6714-6720)

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

4.7
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