Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 397

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Comorbidity and Disease Status–Based Risk Stratification of Outcomes Among Patients With Acute Myeloid Leukemia or Myelodysplasia Receiving Allogeneic Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation

Open access
Sorror, Mohamed L., Sandmaier, Brenda M., Storer, Barry E., Maris, Michael B., Baron, Frédéric, Maloney, David G., Scott, Bart L., Deeg, H. Joachim, Appelbaum, Frederick R., Storb, Rainer·2007·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

Purpose: Retrospective studies have shown similar survival among patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and myelodysplasia (MDS) after nonmyeloablative compared with myeloablative conditioning. Refined risk stratification is required to design prospective trials. Patients and Methods: We stratified outcomes among patients with AML (n = 391) or MDS (n = 186) who received either nonmyeloablative (n = 125) or myeloablative (n = 452) allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) based on comorbidities, as assessed by a HCT-specific comorbidity index (HCT-CI), as well as disease status. Patients receiving nonmyeloablative conditioning were older, more frequently pretreated, more often received unrelated grafts, and more often had HCT-CI scores of ≥ 3 compared with patients who received myeloablative conditioning. Results: Patients with HCT-CI scores of 0 to 2 and either low or high disease risks had probabilities of overall survival at 2 years of 70% and 57% after nonmyeloablative conditioning compared with 78% and 50% after myeloablative conditioning, respectively. Patients with HCT-CI scores of ≥ 3 and either low or high disease risks had probabilities of overall survival of 41% and 29% with nonmyeloablative conditioning compared with 45% and 24% with myeloablative regimens, respectively. After adjusting for pretransplantation differences, stratified outcomes were not significantly different among patients receiving nonmyeloablative compared with myeloablative conditioning, with the exception of lessened nonrelapse mortality (hazard ratio, 0.50; P = .05) in the highest risk group. Conclusion: Patients with low comorbidity scores could be candidates for prospective randomized trials comparing nonmyeloablative and myeloablative conditioning regardless of disease status. Additional data are required for patients with low-risk diseases and high comorbidity scores. Novel antitumor agents combined with nonmyeloablative HCT should be explored among patients with high comorbidity scores and advanced disease.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1200/jco.2006.09.7865

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 397

Metadata

Authors
Sorror, M. L., Sandmaier, B. M., Storer, B. E., Maris, M. B., Baron, F., Maloney, D. G., Scott, B. L., Deeg, H. J., Appelbaum, F. R., & Storb, R.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2007-09-20
Volume
25
Issue
27
Pages
4246-4254
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W2117550229
Cited by
397
References
4
FWCI
17.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.