Similar outcome of upfront-unrelated and matched sibling stem cell transplantation in idiopathic paediatric aplastic anaemia. A study on behalf of the UK Paediatric BMT Working Party, Paediatric Diseases Working Party and Severe Aplastic Anaemia Working Party of EBMT

Abstract We explored the feasibility of unrelated donor haematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) upfront without prior immunosuppressive therapy (IST) in paediatric idiopathic severe aplastic anaemia (SAA). This cohort was then compared to matched historical controls who had undergone first-line therapy with a matched sibling/family donor (MSD) HSCT (n = 87) or IST with horse antithymocyte globulin and ciclosporin (n = 58) or second-line therapy with unrelated donor HSCT post-failed IST (n = 24). The 2-year overall survival in the upfront cohort was 96 ± 4% compared to 91 ± 3% in the MSD controls (P = 0·30) and 94 ± 3% in the IST controls (P = 0·68) and 74 ± 9% in the unrelated donor HSCT post-IST failure controls (P = 0·02).The 2-year event-free survival in the upfront cohort was 92 ± 5% compared to 87 ± 4% in MSD controls (P = 0·37), 40 ± 7% in IST controls (P = 0·0001) and 74 ± 9% in the unrelated donor HSCT post-IST failure controls (n = 24) (P = 0·02). Outcomes for upfront-unrelated donor HSCT in paediatric idiopathic SAA were similar to MSD HSCT and superior to IST and unrelated donor HSCT post-IST failure. Front-line therapy with matched unrelated donor HSCT is a novel treatment approach and could be considered as first-line therapy in selected paediatric patients who lack a MSD. © 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

The unruptured intracranial aneurysm treatment score: a multidisciplinary consensus.

OBJECTIVE We endeavored to develop an unruptured intracranial aneurysm (UIA) treatment score (UIATS) model that includes and quantifies key factors involved in clinical decision-making in the management of UIAs and to assess agreement for this model among specialists in UIA management and research. METHODS An international multidisciplinary (neurosurgery, neuroradiology, neurology, clinical epidemiology) group of 69 specialists was convened to develop and validate the UIATS model using a Delphi consensus. For internal (39 panel members involved in identification of relevant features) and external validation (30 independent external reviewers), 30 selected UIA cases were used to analyze agreement with UIATS management recommendations based on a 5-point Likert scale (5 indicating strong agreement). Interrater agreement (IRA) was assessed with standardized coefficients of dispersion (vr*) (vr* = 0 indicating excellent agreement and vr* = 1 indicating poor agreement). RESULTS The UIATS accounts for 29 key factors in UIA management. Agreement with UIATS (mean Likert scores) was 4.2 (95% confidence interval [CI] 4.1-4.3) per reviewer for both reviewer cohorts; agreement per case was 4.3 (95% CI 4.1-4.4) for panel members and 4.5 (95% CI 4.3-4.6) for external reviewers (p = 0.017). Mean Likert scores were 4.2 (95% CI 4.1-4.3) for interventional reviewers (n = 56) and 4.1 (95% CI 3.9-4.4) for noninterventional reviewers (n = 12) (p = 0.290). Overall IRA (vr*) for both cohorts was 0.026 (95% CI 0.019-0.033). CONCLUSIONS This novel UIA decision guidance study captures an excellent consensus among highly informed individuals on UIA management, irrespective of their underlying specialty. Clinicians can use the UIATS as a comprehensive mechanism for indicating how a large group of specialists might manage an individual patient with a UIA.