4.5 Article

Risk and prognostic factors for acute GVHD based on NIH consensus criteria

期刊

BONE MARROW TRANSPLANTATION
卷 48, 期 4, 页码 587-592

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/bmt.2012.187

关键词

acute GVHD; NIH consensus criteria; risk factor; prognostic factor

资金

  1. Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF)
  2. Ministry of Education, Science and Technology [20110026368]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To investigate the risk factors for acute GVHD (aGVHD), based on NIH consensus criteria (NCC), we evaluated 775 patients who underwent allogeneic transplantation. Of them, 346 patients developed aGVHD by NCC, in whom we also analyzed factors affecting aGVHD-specific survival. The cumulative incidence of aGVHD was 44.7%, consisting of classic aGVHD (n = 320) and late-onset (n = 26). Multivariate analyses revealed that younger age (P = 0.015), unrelated donors (P = 0.004) and acute leukemia compared with other hematologic malignancies (P = 0.005) were significant risk factors for aGVHD, whereas PBSCs showed no association (P = 0.720). Multivariate analyses, with only aGVHD patients, revealed that late-onset aGVHD had superior aGVHD-specific survival to classic aGVHD (P = 0.044), and identified the association of visceral organ involvement (P = 0.002), severity of aGVHD at onset (P = 0.035) and advanced disease status (P<0.001) with inferior aGVHD-specific survival. In conclusion, this study demonstrates the risk and prognostic factors for aGVHD by NCC with some differences with the previous reports that were based on old criteria. The difference in the risk factors according to different criteria will give insights about the pathophysiology of GVHD. The better prognosis of late-onset aGVHD than of classic aGVHD raises the necessity for prospective trials with a large cohort focusing on the onset time. Bone Marrow Transplantation (2013) 48, 587-592; doi: 10.1038/bmt.2012.187; published online 24 September 2012

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

4.5
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