Table 2.

Patient and disease characteristics

Characteristic	FHCRC patients, n = 177	MDACC patients, n = 67
Median age at transplantation, y (range)	41 (19-75)	39 (19-67)
Median interval from diagnosis to HCT, mo	4.8	5.1
Conditioning regimens, %
Myeloablative, TBI-based	45	43
Myeloablative, non–TBI-based	44	24
Reduced-intensity*	2	22
Nonmyeloablative†	10	10
Postgrafting immunosuppression, %
CSP + MTX	78	22
Tacrolimus + MTX	2	61
CSP + MMF	9	0
Other	11	17
Hematopoietic cell source, %
G-PBMCs	35	42
Marrow	65	58
Donor type, %
HLA-matched sibling	68	78
HLA-mismatched related	4	7
HLA-matched unrelated	22	15
HLA-allele–mismatched unrelated	3	0
HLA-antigen–mismatched unrelated	3	0
Patient CMV serostatus, %
Negative	45	32
Positive	55	68
Cytogenetic risks,%‡
Favorable	3	3
Intermediate	82	61
Unfavorable	15	36

HCT indicates hematopoietic cell transplantation; TBI, total body irradiation; CSP, cyclosporine; MTX, methotrexate; MMF, mycophenolate mofetil; G-PBMC, granulocyte colony-stimulating factor–peripheral blood mononuclear cells; HLA, human leukocyte antigen; and CMV, cytomegalovirus.

^*Reduced-intensity conditioning regimens included fludarabine plus busulfan or melphalan.

^†Nonmyeloablative regimens included 2 Gy TBI plus or minus fludarabine or fludarabine/Ara-C/idarubicin.

^‡Cytogenetic risks were assessed and broken down into 3 risk groups: favorable, intermediate, and unfavorable, according to the criteria of the Southwest Oncology Group (SWOG)/Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group.³