Figure 2.
Outcomes for propensity-matched patients by haploidentical donor vs MUD. Data are for the whole cohort, including patients that received reduced-intensity and myeloablative conditioning. The HR for MUDs compared with Haplos: (A) OS was 0.95 (95% CI, 0.65-1.16), (B) DFS was 0.98 (95% CI, 0.73-1.18), (C) relapse was 1.06 (95% CI, 0.77-1.38), (D) NRM was 0.85 (95% CI, 0.42-1.13), (E) grade 3 to 4 aGVHD was 0.47 (95% CI, 0.16-0.85), and (F) cGVHD was 0.65 (95% CI, 0.48-0.92). aGVHD, acute graft-versus-host disease; BM/PB, bone marrow/peripheral blood; cGVHD, chronic graft-versus-host disease; Condition, conditioning; HCT, recipient Sorror comorbidity score; Recip. CMV, recipient CMV status.

Outcomes for propensity-matched patients by haploidentical donor vs MUD. Data are for the whole cohort, including patients that received reduced-intensity and myeloablative conditioning. The HR for MUDs compared with Haplos: (A) OS was 0.95 (95% CI, 0.65-1.16), (B) DFS was 0.98 (95% CI, 0.73-1.18), (C) relapse was 1.06 (95% CI, 0.77-1.38), (D) NRM was 0.85 (95% CI, 0.42-1.13), (E) grade 3 to 4 aGVHD was 0.47 (95% CI, 0.16-0.85), and (F) cGVHD was 0.65 (95% CI, 0.48-0.92). aGVHD, acute graft-versus-host disease; BM/PB, bone marrow/peripheral blood; cGVHD, chronic graft-versus-host disease; Condition, conditioning; HCT, recipient Sorror comorbidity score; Recip. CMV, recipient CMV status.

Close Modal

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal