+ Site Statistics
+ Search Articles
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
EurekaMag Most Shared ContentMost Shared
EurekaMag PDF Full Text ContentPDF Full Text
+ PDF Full Text
Request PDF Full TextRequest PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on FacebookFollow on Facebook
Follow on TwitterFollow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedInFollow on LinkedIn

+ Translate

Multi-center validation of a prognostic grading in chronic graft versus host disease

Multi-center validation of a prognostic grading in chronic graft versus host disease

Blood 98(11 Part 1): 740a-741a, November 16

We previously reported that the 10-year actuarial cGVHD-specific survival after diagnosis of cGVHD was 51% (95%CI=39%, 60%). Deaths because of the relapse of underlying hematologic malignancies had been censored at the time of relapse. Multivariable analysis showed that extensive (>50% of BSA) skin involvement (ESI), thrombocytopenia (TP)(<100K) and progressive-type onset (PTO) were significantly associated with decreased survival. The predictive value of these baseline factors for cGVHD-specific survival was examined using prognostic models based on either a prognostic factor score (PFS) or absolute number of these risk factors (RF) calculated for each individual. The models identified three groups of patients with distinct survival outcomes (Blood 2001; 97:1219-1226; summarized given). Now, we report independent validation of these prognostic models in 3 cohorts. Data were collected as described previously. The only exception is that the extent of skin involvement in the IBMTR database was re-coded as <50% if it was originally recorded as "mild" and >50% if "moderate to severe". RESULTS: (1) IBMTR data: Both PFS and RF models were able to separate patients into three groups with statistically different (p<0.0001) survival outcomes. (2) FHCRC data: Very few patients in this cohort of 188 patients had ESI without PTO (n=19) or PTO without ESI (n=30). Therefore, this cohort was not informative in attempting to determine whether ESI adds prognostic information to TP and PTO. (3) NEBRASKA data: Three groups with different survival outcomes were demonstrated using the RF model only. The statistical power of validation was modest in this cohort possibly because the high-risk group contained only 3 patients. CONCLUSION: This new clinical grading in cGVHD based on 3 prognostic categories could be useful to improve clinical management, trial design, and communication among centers.

(PDF 0-2 workdays service: $29.90)

Accession: 035349006

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

Related references

A prognostic model for grading chronic graft versus host disease. Blood 96(11 Part 1): 556a, November 16, 2000

Development of a prognostic model for grading chronic graft-versus-host disease. Blood 97(5): 1219-1226, 2001

Validation of NIH consensus criteria for diagnosis and severity-grading of chronic graft-versus-host disease. International Journal of Hematology 97(2): 263-271, 2013

Improvement in oral chronic graft versus host disease with the administration of effervescent tablets of topical budesonide – an open, randomized, multi-center study. 2011

Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research chronic graft-versus-host disease risk score predicts mortality in an independent validation cohort. Biology of Blood and Marrow Transplantation 21(4): 640-645, 2015

Clinical grading in chronic graft-versus-host disease: is it time for change?. Leukemia & Lymphoma 43(6): 1211-1220, 2002

Chronic graft-versus-host disease: clinical features and grading systems. International Journal of Hematology 79(3): 216-220, 2004

The host response in graft versus host disease. I. Radiosensitive T cells of host origin inhibit parental anti-F1 cytotoxicity in murine chronic graft versus host disease. Cellular Immunology 151(1): 24-38, 1993

Prospective grading of graft-versus-host disease after unrelated donor marrow transplantation: a grading algorithm versus blinded expert panel review. Biology of Blood and Marrow Transplantation 9(8): 512-518, 2003

Overlap subtype of chronic graft-versus-host disease is associated with an adverse prognosis, functional impairment, and inferior patient-reported outcomes: a Chronic Graft-versus-Host Disease Consortium study. Haematologica 97(3): 451-458, 2012

Neurological manifestations of chronic graft-versus-host disease after allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplantation: report from the Consensus Conference on Clinical Practice in chronic graft-versus-host disease. Brain 133(10): 2852-2865, 2010

Dual targeting of bromodomain-containing 4 by AZD5153 and BCL2 by AZD4320 against B-cell lymphomas concomitantly overexpressing c-MYC and BCL2. Investigational New Drugs, 2018

Toward biomarkers for chronic graft-versus-host disease: National Institutes of Health consensus development project on criteria for clinical trials in chronic graft-versus-host disease: III. Biomarker Working Group Report. Biology of Blood and Marrow Transplantation 12(2): 126-137, 2006

Histopathologic diagnosis of chronic graft-versus-host disease: National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Project on Criteria for Clinical Trials in Chronic Graft-versus-Host Disease: II. Pathology Working Group Report. Biology of Blood and Marrow Transplantation 12(1): 31-47, 2006