ArticleHaematologica2026
Chronic graft-<I>versus</i>-host disease in the era of posttransplant cyclophosphamide.
Article in Haematologica, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Belumosudil for Long-Standing Refractory Chronic Graft-Versus-Host Disease: A Two-Patient Case Report.Clinical case reports · 2026Article
- Chronic graft-versus-host disease.Nature reviews. Disease primers · 2026Review
- Immediate versus delayed short-course ruxolitinib for acute GVHD prophylaxis after myeloablative allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Article
- Impact of post-transplant cyclophosphamide and anti-thymocyte globulin on immune reconstitution in MUD allo-HCT.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
26 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Chronic graft-versus-host disease (cGVHD) remains a leading cause of late morbidity after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT), but its phenotype under modern prophylaxis with post-transplant cyclophosphamide (PTCy) is not well characterized. We conducted a prospective, single-center study of 600 consecutive adults undergoing HCT with PTCy- based prophylaxis to assess incidence, clinical manifestations, treatment response, prognostic factors, and outcomes. Donors included matched siblings (36%), matched unrelated (34%), haploidentical (24%), and mismatched unrelated (6%). The 1-year cumulative incidence of moderate-to-severe cGVHD was 22% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 19-26%). The mouth was the most frequently involved organ (64%), with lichen planus-like changes as the predominant diagnostic feature, whereas sclerotic forms were uncommon. Notably, 27% of moderate-to-severe cases were managed successfully without systemic corticosteroids. The cumulative incidence of systemic therapy requirement was 15% at 1 year, with risk significantly higher in donors ≥30 years and in female-to-male transplants. Among 105 patients requiring systemic steroids, 64% achieved complete response, 32% discontinued immunosuppression, yet 18% developed cGVHD-related sequelae. Mouth ulcers and erythema, as well as a lung score ≥2 at steroid initiation independently predicted shorter failure-free survival. At 2 years, overall survival, cGVHD-free relapse-free survival, and GVHD-free relapse-free survival were 76% (95% CI: 72-79), 63% (95% CI: 60-68), and 57% (95% CI: 53-62), respectively. In conclusion, after HCT with PTCy-based prophylaxis, systemic therapy was required in only a minority of patients, with risk influenced by donor age and sex mismatch rather than donor type. While corticosteroids were generally effective, a substantial subset required salvage therapy, underscoring the burden of refractory cGVHD and the need for steroid-sparing approaches and novel interventions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.