Annals of hematology · 2026
The optimal conditioning intensity of stem cell transplantation for acute myeloid leukemia in complete remission.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Shimomura Yoshimitsu, Komukai Sho, Kitamura Tetsuhisa, Sobue Tomotaka, Yamasaki Satoshi, Kondo Tadakazu, Mizuno Shohei, Harada Kaito, Shingai Naoki, Tanaka Masatsugu, Ito Ayumu, Nishida Tetsuya, Ohigashi Hiroyuki, Uchida Naoyuki, Matsuoka Ken-Ichi, Kanda Yoshinobu, Onizuka Makoto, Kawakita Toshiro, Hiramoto Nobuhiro, Sawa Masashi, Fukushima Kentaro, Kanda Junya, Fukuda Takahiro, Atsuta Yoshiko, Yanada Masamitsu
Аннотация
This study aimed to identify patient groups in which myeloablative conditioning (MAC) or reduced-intensity conditioning (RIC) regimens induced superior progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in complete remission (CR) using a machine-learning approach. Our study included 3273 patients aged 40–69 with AML in CR. The patients were divided into training (N = 2020) and validation cohorts (N = 1253). We employed a machine learning-based group identification model in the training cohort. Subsequently, in the validation cohort, we estimated the impact of the optimal conditioning group compared with the non-optimal conditioning group on PFS using an inverse probability weight analysis. The developed model was consistent with the eight factors and combinations, and the high score suggested that RIC was more appropriate than MAC. In the validation cohort, 127 patients with high scores and who received RIC and 769 patients with low scores and who received MAC were categorized into the optimal conditioning group (896, 71.5%). The weighted hazard ratio for PFS was 0.73 (95% confidence interval: 0.57–0.94) in the optimal conditioning group compared with the non-optimal conditioning group (P = 0.016). In conclusion, we developed an easy-to-use model that helps the physician choose a patient-specific conditioning regimen for patients with AML in CR.