You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Unmanipulated haploidentical in comparison with matched unrelated donor stem cell transplantation in patients 60 years and older with acute myeloid leukemia: a comparative study on behalf of the ALWP of the EBMT
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Hematology & Oncology, April 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13045-018-0598-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Nicole Santoro, Myriam Labopin, Federica Giannotti, Gerard Ehninger, Dietger Niederwieser, Arne Brecht, Matthias Stelljes, Nicolaus Kröger, Herman Einsele, Matthias Eder, Michael Hallek, Bertram Glass, Jürgen Finke, Fabio Ciceri, Mohamad Mohty, Annalisa Ruggeri, Arnon Nagler |
| Abstract |
Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is both more common and with more biologically aggressive phenotype in the elderly. Allogenic stem cell transplantation (allo-SCT) is the best treatment option in fit patients. Either HLA-matched unrelated donor (MUD) or haploidentical (Haplo) donor are possible alternative for patients in need. We retrospectively compared non-T-cell-depleted Haplo (n = 250) to 10/10 MUD (n = 2589) in AML patients ≥ 60 years. Median follow-up was 23 months. Disease status at transplant differs significantly between the two groups (p < 10-4). Reduced intensity conditioning (RIC) was administrated to 73 and 77% of Haplo and MUD, respectively (p = 0.23). Stem cell source was the bone marrow (BM) in 52% of the Haplo and 6% of MUD (p < 10-4). Anti-thymocyte globulin (ATG) was most frequently used in MUD (p < 10-4) while post-Tx cyclophosphamide (PT-Cy) was given in 62% of Haplo. Engraftment was achieved in 90% of the Haplo vs 97% of MUD (p < 10-4). In multivariate analysis, no significant difference was found between Haplo and MUD for acute (a)graft versus host disease (GVHD) grade II-IV, relapse incidence (RI), non-relapse mortality (NRM), leukemia free survival (LFS), graft-versus-host-free-relapse free survival (GRFS), and overall survival (OS). Extensive chronic (c)GVHD was significantly higher for MUD as compared to Haplo (HR 2, p = 0.01, 95% CI 1.17-3.47). A propensity score analysis confirmed the higher risk of extensive cGVHD for MUD without differences for other outcomes. Allo-SCT from both Haplo and MUD are valid option for AML patients ≥ 60 years of age with similar results. Transplantation from MUD was associated with higher extensive cGVHD. Our findings suggest that Haplo is a suitable and attractive graft source for patients≥ 60 with AML in need of allo-SCT. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 35 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 9 | 26% |
| Lecturer | 5 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 9% |
| Other | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 4 | 11% |
| Unknown | 8 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 18 | 51% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 11% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 3% |
| Neuroscience | 1 | 3% |
| Engineering | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 10 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 May 2019.
All research outputs
#15,683,389
of 23,305,591 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Hematology & Oncology
#800
of 1,208 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#190,603
of 297,462 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Hematology & Oncology
#22
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,305,591 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,208 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.6. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 297,462 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.