Hemang Yadav , Mehrdad Hefazi Torghabeh , Sumedh S Hoskote , Kelly M Pennington , Kaiser G Lim , Paul D Scanlon , Alexander S Niven , William J Hogan
{"title":"调整异体HCT患者贫血弥散能力:两种方法的比较","authors":"Hemang Yadav , Mehrdad Hefazi Torghabeh , Sumedh S Hoskote , Kelly M Pennington , Kaiser G Lim , Paul D Scanlon , Alexander S Niven , William J Hogan","doi":"10.1016/j.retram.2023.103432","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Diffusing capacity<span> (DLCO) measurements are affected by hemoglobin. Two adjustment equations are used: Cotes (recommended by ATS/ERS) and Dinakara (used in the hematopoietic stem cell transplantation comorbidity index [HCT-CI]). It is unknown how these methods compare, and which is better from a prognostication standpoint.</span></p></div><div><h3>Study design</h3><p>This is a retrospective cohort of 1273 adult patients who underwent allogeneic HCT<span>, completed a pre-transplant DLCO and had a concurrent hemoglobin measurement. Non-relapse mortality was measured using competing risk analysis.</span></p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p><span>Patients had normal spirometry (FEV</span><sub>1</sub><span><span> 99.7% [IQR: 89.4–109.8%; FVC 100.1% [IQR: 91.0-109.6%] predicted), left ventricular ejection fraction (57.2[6.7]%) and right ventricular </span>systolic pressure (30.1[7.0] mmHg). Cotes-DLCO was 85.6% (IQR: 76.5-95.7%) and Dinakara-DLCO was 103.6% (IQR: 90.7-117.2%) predicted. For anemic patients (Hb<10g/dL), Cotes-DLCO was 84.2% (IQR: 73.9–94.1%) while Dinakara-DLCO 111.0% (97.3–124.7%) predicted. Cotes-DLCO increased HCT-CI score for 323 (25.4%) and decreased for 4 (0.3%) patients. Cotes-DLCO was superior for predicting non-relapse mortality: for both mild (66-80% predicted, HR 1.55 [95%CI: 1.26-1.92, p < 0.001]) and moderate (<65% predicted, HR 2.11 [95%CI: 1.55-2.87, p<0.001]) impairment. In contrast, for Dinakara-DLCO, only mild impairment (HR 1.69 [95%CI 1.26-2.27, p < 0.001]) was associated with lower survival while moderate impairment was not (HR 1.44 [95%CI: 0.64-3.21, p = 0.4]). In multivariable analyses, after adjusting for demographics, hematologic variables, cardiac function and FEV</span><sub>1</sub>, Cotes-DLCO was predictive of overall survival at 1-year (OR 0.98 [95%CI: 0.97-1.00], p = 0.01), but Dinakara-DLCO was not (OR 1.00 [95%CI: 0.98-1.00], p = 0.20).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>The ERS/ATS recommended Cotes method likely underestimates DLCO in patients with anemia, whereas the Dinakara (used in the HCT-CI score) overestimates DLCO. The Cotes method is superior to the Dinakara method score in predicting overall survival and relapse-free survival in patients undergoing allogeneic HCT.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":54260,"journal":{"name":"Current Research in Translational Medicine","volume":"72 2","pages":"Article 103432"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Adjusting diffusing capacity for anemia in patients undergoing allogeneic HCT: a comparison of two methodologies\",\"authors\":\"Hemang Yadav , Mehrdad Hefazi Torghabeh , Sumedh S Hoskote , Kelly M Pennington , Kaiser G Lim , Paul D Scanlon , Alexander S Niven , William J Hogan\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.retram.2023.103432\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Diffusing capacity<span> (DLCO) measurements are affected by hemoglobin. Two adjustment equations are used: Cotes (recommended by ATS/ERS) and Dinakara (used in the hematopoietic stem cell transplantation comorbidity index [HCT-CI]). It is unknown how these methods compare, and which is better from a prognostication standpoint.</span></p></div><div><h3>Study design</h3><p>This is a retrospective cohort of 1273 adult patients who underwent allogeneic HCT<span>, completed a pre-transplant DLCO and had a concurrent hemoglobin measurement. Non-relapse mortality was measured using competing risk analysis.</span></p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p><span>Patients had normal spirometry (FEV</span><sub>1</sub><span><span> 99.7% [IQR: 89.4–109.8%; FVC 100.1% [IQR: 91.0-109.6%] predicted), left ventricular ejection fraction (57.2[6.7]%) and right ventricular </span>systolic pressure (30.1[7.0] mmHg). Cotes-DLCO was 85.6% (IQR: 76.5-95.7%) and Dinakara-DLCO was 103.6% (IQR: 90.7-117.2%) predicted. For anemic patients (Hb<10g/dL), Cotes-DLCO was 84.2% (IQR: 73.9–94.1%) while Dinakara-DLCO 111.0% (97.3–124.7%) predicted. Cotes-DLCO increased HCT-CI score for 323 (25.4%) and decreased for 4 (0.3%) patients. Cotes-DLCO was superior for predicting non-relapse mortality: for both mild (66-80% predicted, HR 1.55 [95%CI: 1.26-1.92, p < 0.001]) and moderate (<65% predicted, HR 2.11 [95%CI: 1.55-2.87, p<0.001]) impairment. In contrast, for Dinakara-DLCO, only mild impairment (HR 1.69 [95%CI 1.26-2.27, p < 0.001]) was associated with lower survival while moderate impairment was not (HR 1.44 [95%CI: 0.64-3.21, p = 0.4]). In multivariable analyses, after adjusting for demographics, hematologic variables, cardiac function and FEV</span><sub>1</sub>, Cotes-DLCO was predictive of overall survival at 1-year (OR 0.98 [95%CI: 0.97-1.00], p = 0.01), but Dinakara-DLCO was not (OR 1.00 [95%CI: 0.98-1.00], p = 0.20).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>The ERS/ATS recommended Cotes method likely underestimates DLCO in patients with anemia, whereas the Dinakara (used in the HCT-CI score) overestimates DLCO. The Cotes method is superior to the Dinakara method score in predicting overall survival and relapse-free survival in patients undergoing allogeneic HCT.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54260,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Current Research in Translational Medicine\",\"volume\":\"72 2\",\"pages\":\"Article 103432\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Current Research in Translational Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2452318623000569\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current Research in Translational Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2452318623000569","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
漫射能力(DLCO)的测量受血红蛋白的影响。采用两种调整方程:Cotes (ATS/ERS推荐)和Dinakara(用于造血干细胞移植合并症指数[HCT-CI])。目前尚不清楚这些方法如何比较,以及从预测的角度来看哪一种更好。研究设计:这是一项回顾性队列研究,1273名接受同种异体HCT、完成移植前DLCO并同时进行血红蛋白测定的成年患者。使用竞争风险分析测量非复发死亡率。结果肺活量测定正常(FEV1 99.7%) [IQR: 89.4-109.8%;FVC 100.1% [IQR: 91.0-109.6%]预测),左心室射血分数(57.2[6.7]%)和右心室收缩压(30.1[7.0]mmHg)。Cotes-DLCO预测为85.6% (IQR: 76.5-95.7%), Dinakara-DLCO预测为103.6% (IQR: 90.7-117.2%)。对于贫血患者(Hb<10g/dL), Cotes-DLCO预测值为84.2% (IQR: 73.9-94.1%), Dinakara-DLCO预测值为111.0%(97.3-124.7%)。Cotes-DLCO增加了323例(25.4%)患者的HCT-CI评分,降低了4例(0.3%)。Cotes-DLCO在预测非复发死亡率方面更优越:对于轻度(66-80%预测,HR 1.55) [95%CI: 1.26-1.92, p <0.001])和中度(<65%预测,危险度2.11 [95%CI: 1.55-2.87, p<0.001])损伤。相比之下,对于Dinakara-DLCO,只有轻度损伤(HR 1.69 [95%CI 1.26-2.27, p <0.001])与较低的生存率相关,而中度损伤与较低的生存率无关(HR 1.44 [95%CI: 0.64-3.21, p = 0.4])。在多变量分析中,在调整了人口统计学、血液学变量、心功能和FEV1后,Cotes-DLCO可预测1年总生存率(OR 0.98 [95%CI: 0.97-1.00], p = 0.01),但Dinakara-DLCO不能预测1年总生存率(OR 1.00 [95%CI: 0.98-1.00], p = 0.20)。结论ERS/ATS推荐的Cotes方法可能低估了贫血患者的DLCO,而Dinakara(用于HCT-CI评分)高估了DLCO。Cotes方法在预测异体HCT患者的总生存期和无复发生存期方面优于Dinakara方法评分。
Adjusting diffusing capacity for anemia in patients undergoing allogeneic HCT: a comparison of two methodologies
Background
Diffusing capacity (DLCO) measurements are affected by hemoglobin. Two adjustment equations are used: Cotes (recommended by ATS/ERS) and Dinakara (used in the hematopoietic stem cell transplantation comorbidity index [HCT-CI]). It is unknown how these methods compare, and which is better from a prognostication standpoint.
Study design
This is a retrospective cohort of 1273 adult patients who underwent allogeneic HCT, completed a pre-transplant DLCO and had a concurrent hemoglobin measurement. Non-relapse mortality was measured using competing risk analysis.
Results
Patients had normal spirometry (FEV1 99.7% [IQR: 89.4–109.8%; FVC 100.1% [IQR: 91.0-109.6%] predicted), left ventricular ejection fraction (57.2[6.7]%) and right ventricular systolic pressure (30.1[7.0] mmHg). Cotes-DLCO was 85.6% (IQR: 76.5-95.7%) and Dinakara-DLCO was 103.6% (IQR: 90.7-117.2%) predicted. For anemic patients (Hb<10g/dL), Cotes-DLCO was 84.2% (IQR: 73.9–94.1%) while Dinakara-DLCO 111.0% (97.3–124.7%) predicted. Cotes-DLCO increased HCT-CI score for 323 (25.4%) and decreased for 4 (0.3%) patients. Cotes-DLCO was superior for predicting non-relapse mortality: for both mild (66-80% predicted, HR 1.55 [95%CI: 1.26-1.92, p < 0.001]) and moderate (<65% predicted, HR 2.11 [95%CI: 1.55-2.87, p<0.001]) impairment. In contrast, for Dinakara-DLCO, only mild impairment (HR 1.69 [95%CI 1.26-2.27, p < 0.001]) was associated with lower survival while moderate impairment was not (HR 1.44 [95%CI: 0.64-3.21, p = 0.4]). In multivariable analyses, after adjusting for demographics, hematologic variables, cardiac function and FEV1, Cotes-DLCO was predictive of overall survival at 1-year (OR 0.98 [95%CI: 0.97-1.00], p = 0.01), but Dinakara-DLCO was not (OR 1.00 [95%CI: 0.98-1.00], p = 0.20).
Conclusion
The ERS/ATS recommended Cotes method likely underestimates DLCO in patients with anemia, whereas the Dinakara (used in the HCT-CI score) overestimates DLCO. The Cotes method is superior to the Dinakara method score in predicting overall survival and relapse-free survival in patients undergoing allogeneic HCT.
期刊介绍:
Current Research in Translational Medicine is a peer-reviewed journal, publishing worldwide clinical and basic research in the field of hematology, immunology, infectiology, hematopoietic cell transplantation, and cellular and gene therapy. The journal considers for publication English-language editorials, original articles, reviews, and short reports including case-reports. Contributions are intended to draw attention to experimental medicine and translational research. Current Research in Translational Medicine periodically publishes thematic issues and is indexed in all major international databases (2017 Impact Factor is 1.9).
Core areas covered in Current Research in Translational Medicine are:
Hematology,
Immunology,
Infectiology,
Hematopoietic,
Cell Transplantation,
Cellular and Gene Therapy.