一种比较移植物抗宿主无病、无复发生存率的胜比方法。

IF 3.8 2区 医学 Q1 HEMATOLOGY
Yoshimitsu Shimomura, Sho Komukai, Tetsuhisa Kitamura, Kazuki Yoshimura, Yoshihiro Inamoto, Yu Akahoshi, Yachiyo Kuwatsuka, Yoshiaki Usui, Naoyuki Uchida, Masatsugu Tanaka, Makoto Onizuka, Mamiko Sakata-Yanagimoto, Noriko Doki, Yuta Hasegawa, Kazuya Ishiwata, Hirohisa Nakamae, Masashi Sawa, Yuta Katayama, Toshiro Kawakita, Makoto Yoshimitsu, Takahiro Fukuda, Yoshinobu Kanda, Marie Ohbiki, Hideki Nakasone, Junya Kanda
{"title":"一种比较移植物抗宿主无病、无复发生存率的胜比方法。","authors":"Yoshimitsu Shimomura, Sho Komukai, Tetsuhisa Kitamura, Kazuki Yoshimura, Yoshihiro Inamoto, Yu Akahoshi, Yachiyo Kuwatsuka, Yoshiaki Usui, Naoyuki Uchida, Masatsugu Tanaka, Makoto Onizuka, Mamiko Sakata-Yanagimoto, Noriko Doki, Yuta Hasegawa, Kazuya Ishiwata, Hirohisa Nakamae, Masashi Sawa, Yuta Katayama, Toshiro Kawakita, Makoto Yoshimitsu, Takahiro Fukuda, Yoshinobu Kanda, Marie Ohbiki, Hideki Nakasone, Junya Kanda","doi":"10.1111/bjh.70008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The optimal alternative donor type for patients lacking human leucocyte antigen (HLA)-matched related or unrelated donors remains unclear. In comparative studies evaluating donor types, graft-versus-host disease (GVHD)-free, relapse-free survival (GRFS) represents a well-established end-point but has limitations. The win ratio approach addresses these limitations by analysing multiple end-points with varying severities to account for the relative component priorities. We compared HLA-mismatched unrelated donors, haploidentical donors and cord blood using both the hazard ratio (HR) of GRFS and the win ratio related to GRFS. The haploidentical donor group had a similar HR of GRFS (HR: 1.01, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.85-1.19, p = 0.916) and win ratio (win ratio: 0.86, 95% CI: 0.72-1.02, p = 0.081) to HLA-mismatched unrelated donors. Cord blood transplantation showed similar GRFS compared to HLA-mismatched unrelated donors in the Cox proportional model (HR: 1.14, 95% CI: 0.98-1.32, p = 0.085), significantly lower win ratio (win ratio: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.68-0.93, p = 0.004) and similar outcomes to haploidentical donors. HLA-mismatched unrelated donor transplantation showed comparable to superior outcomes among alternative donor types. Our results indicate the need to present the win ratio alongside conventional methods to assess the end-point robustly.</p>","PeriodicalId":135,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of Haematology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A win ratio approach for comparing graft-versus-host disease-free, relapse-free survival among alternative donors.\",\"authors\":\"Yoshimitsu Shimomura, Sho Komukai, Tetsuhisa Kitamura, Kazuki Yoshimura, Yoshihiro Inamoto, Yu Akahoshi, Yachiyo Kuwatsuka, Yoshiaki Usui, Naoyuki Uchida, Masatsugu Tanaka, Makoto Onizuka, Mamiko Sakata-Yanagimoto, Noriko Doki, Yuta Hasegawa, Kazuya Ishiwata, Hirohisa Nakamae, Masashi Sawa, Yuta Katayama, Toshiro Kawakita, Makoto Yoshimitsu, Takahiro Fukuda, Yoshinobu Kanda, Marie Ohbiki, Hideki Nakasone, Junya Kanda\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/bjh.70008\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The optimal alternative donor type for patients lacking human leucocyte antigen (HLA)-matched related or unrelated donors remains unclear. In comparative studies evaluating donor types, graft-versus-host disease (GVHD)-free, relapse-free survival (GRFS) represents a well-established end-point but has limitations. The win ratio approach addresses these limitations by analysing multiple end-points with varying severities to account for the relative component priorities. We compared HLA-mismatched unrelated donors, haploidentical donors and cord blood using both the hazard ratio (HR) of GRFS and the win ratio related to GRFS. The haploidentical donor group had a similar HR of GRFS (HR: 1.01, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.85-1.19, p = 0.916) and win ratio (win ratio: 0.86, 95% CI: 0.72-1.02, p = 0.081) to HLA-mismatched unrelated donors. Cord blood transplantation showed similar GRFS compared to HLA-mismatched unrelated donors in the Cox proportional model (HR: 1.14, 95% CI: 0.98-1.32, p = 0.085), significantly lower win ratio (win ratio: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.68-0.93, p = 0.004) and similar outcomes to haploidentical donors. HLA-mismatched unrelated donor transplantation showed comparable to superior outcomes among alternative donor types. Our results indicate the need to present the win ratio alongside conventional methods to assess the end-point robustly.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":135,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"British Journal of Haematology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"British Journal of Haematology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/bjh.70008\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEMATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal of Haematology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/bjh.70008","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

对于缺乏人类白细胞抗原(HLA)的患者,最佳的替代供体类型-匹配的亲属或非亲属供体仍不清楚。在评估供体类型的比较研究中,无移植物抗宿主病(GVHD)、无复发生存(GRFS)是一个公认的终点,但存在局限性。胜率方法通过分析具有不同严重程度的多个端点来解释相对组件优先级,从而解决了这些限制。我们使用GRFS的风险比(HR)和与GRFS相关的赢比(win ratio)来比较hla错配的非亲属献血者、单倍体相同的献血者和脐带血。单倍相同的供体组与hla不匹配的非亲属供体的GRFS HR (HR: 1.01, 95%可信区间[CI]: 0.85-1.19, p = 0.916)和win ratio (win ratio: 0.86, 95% CI: 0.72-1.02, p = 0.081)相似。在Cox比例模型中,脐带血移植与hla错配的非亲属供者的GRFS相似(HR: 1.14, 95% CI: 0.98-1.32, p = 0.085),显著降低的胜比(胜比:0.80,95% CI: 0.68-0.93, p = 0.004),与单倍体相同供者的结果相似。hla不匹配的非亲属供体移植在其他供体类型中显示出相当的优越结果。我们的研究结果表明,需要将胜率与传统方法一起呈现,以稳健地评估终点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A win ratio approach for comparing graft-versus-host disease-free, relapse-free survival among alternative donors.

The optimal alternative donor type for patients lacking human leucocyte antigen (HLA)-matched related or unrelated donors remains unclear. In comparative studies evaluating donor types, graft-versus-host disease (GVHD)-free, relapse-free survival (GRFS) represents a well-established end-point but has limitations. The win ratio approach addresses these limitations by analysing multiple end-points with varying severities to account for the relative component priorities. We compared HLA-mismatched unrelated donors, haploidentical donors and cord blood using both the hazard ratio (HR) of GRFS and the win ratio related to GRFS. The haploidentical donor group had a similar HR of GRFS (HR: 1.01, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.85-1.19, p = 0.916) and win ratio (win ratio: 0.86, 95% CI: 0.72-1.02, p = 0.081) to HLA-mismatched unrelated donors. Cord blood transplantation showed similar GRFS compared to HLA-mismatched unrelated donors in the Cox proportional model (HR: 1.14, 95% CI: 0.98-1.32, p = 0.085), significantly lower win ratio (win ratio: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.68-0.93, p = 0.004) and similar outcomes to haploidentical donors. HLA-mismatched unrelated donor transplantation showed comparable to superior outcomes among alternative donor types. Our results indicate the need to present the win ratio alongside conventional methods to assess the end-point robustly.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.60
自引率
4.60%
发文量
565
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: The British Journal of Haematology publishes original research papers in clinical, laboratory and experimental haematology. The Journal also features annotations, reviews, short reports, images in haematology and Letters to the Editor.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信