Table 3.

Multivariate analysis for EFS and OS

EFSOS
HR (95% CI)P valueHR (95% CI)P value
PB vs BM 1.93 (0.87-4.26) .104 2.62 (1.17-5.89) .019 
CB vs BM 0.55 (0.13-2.31) .412 Not applicable*  
Age 1.09 (1.05-1.12) <.001 1.10 (1.06-1.14) <.0001 
Transplant year, ≥2007 vs ≤2006 0.95 (0.90-0.99) .013 0.96 (0.91-1.00) .101 
Conditioning regimen, RIC vs MAC 1.13 (0.46-2.81) .793 0.83 (0.29-2.39) .735 
In vivo T-cell depletion, yes vs no 1.34 (0.63-2.82) .445 1.10 (0.49-2.48) .806 
EFSOS
HR (95% CI)P valueHR (95% CI)P value
PB vs BM 1.93 (0.87-4.26) .104 2.62 (1.17-5.89) .019 
CB vs BM 0.55 (0.13-2.31) .412 Not applicable*  
Age 1.09 (1.05-1.12) <.001 1.10 (1.06-1.14) <.0001 
Transplant year, ≥2007 vs ≤2006 0.95 (0.90-0.99) .013 0.96 (0.91-1.00) .101 
Conditioning regimen, RIC vs MAC 1.13 (0.46-2.81) .793 0.83 (0.29-2.39) .735 
In vivo T-cell depletion, yes vs no 1.34 (0.63-2.82) .445 1.10 (0.49-2.48) .806 

The adjusted Cox regression analysis was stratified by registry (EBMT and CIBMTR); age was considered as a continuous variable, and when considering the graft source, PB and CB were compared, separately, with BM (baseline) for the EFS.

*

Not evaluable, as there was only 1 event in the CB group; therefore, for OS, the CB transplants were included with BM transplants.

Close Modal

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal