post-remission chemotherapy

Pediatric-style post-remission chemotherapy produced superior overall survival compared to myeloablative allogeneic HCT in AYAs with Ph-negative ALL in CR1, with 5-year OS of 66% vs 47%.

Effect: improvement; HR 2.00 (HCT vs chemotherapy); CI: 95% CI 1.5–2.66

Pediatric-style post-remission chemotherapy produced superior overall survival compared to myeloablative allogeneic HCT in AYAs with Ph-negative ALL in CR1, with 5-year OS of 66% vs 47%.

Effect: improvement; HR 2.00 (HCT vs chemotherapy); CI: 95% CI 1.5–2.66

Pediatric-style post-remission chemotherapy produced superior overall survival compared to myeloablative allogeneic HCT in AYAs with Ph-negative ALL in CR1, with 5-year OS of 66% vs 47%.

Effect: improvement; HR 2.00 (HCT vs chemotherapy); CI: 95% CI 1.5–2.66

Pediatric-style post-remission chemotherapy produced superior overall survival compared to myeloablative allogeneic HCT in AYAs with Ph-negative ALL in CR1, with 5-year OS of 66% vs 47%.

Effect: improvement; HR 2.00 (HCT vs chemotherapy); CI: 95% CI 1.5–2.66

Pediatric-style post-remission chemotherapy produced superior overall survival compared to myeloablative allogeneic HCT in AYAs with Ph-negative ALL in CR1, with 5-year OS of 66% vs 47%.

Effect: improvement; HR 2.00 (HCT vs chemotherapy); CI: 95% CI 1.5–2.66

Pediatric-style post-remission chemotherapy produced superior overall survival compared to myeloablative allogeneic HCT in AYAs with Ph-negative ALL in CR1, with 5-year OS of 66% vs 47%.

Effect: improvement; HR 2.00 (HCT vs chemotherapy); CI: 95% CI 1.5–2.66

Pediatric-style post-remission chemotherapy produced superior overall survival compared to myeloablative allogeneic HCT in AYAs with Ph-negative ALL in CR1, with 5-year OS of 66% vs 47%.

Effect: improvement; HR 2.00 (HCT vs chemotherapy); CI: 95% CI 1.5–2.66

Pediatric-style post-remission chemotherapy produced superior overall survival compared to myeloablative allogeneic HCT in AYAs with Ph-negative ALL in CR1, with 5-year OS of 66% vs 47%.

Effect: improvement; HR 2.00 (HCT vs chemotherapy); CI: 95% CI 1.5–2.66

Pediatric-style post-remission chemotherapy produced superior overall survival compared to myeloablative allogeneic HCT in AYAs with Ph-negative ALL in CR1, with 5-year OS of 66% vs 47%.

Effect: improvement; HR 2.00 (HCT vs chemotherapy); CI: 95% CI 1.5–2.66

Pediatric-style post-remission chemotherapy produced superior overall survival compared to myeloablative allogeneic HCT in AYAs with Ph-negative ALL in CR1, with 5-year OS of 66% vs 47%.

Effect: improvement; HR 2.00 (HCT vs chemotherapy); CI: 95% CI 1.5–2.66

Pediatric-style post-remission chemotherapy produced superior overall survival compared to myeloablative allogeneic HCT in AYAs with Ph-negative ALL in CR1, with 5-year OS of 66% vs 47%.

Effect: improvement; HR 2.00 (HCT vs chemotherapy); CI: 95% CI 1.5–2.66

Pediatric-style post-remission chemotherapy produced superior overall survival compared to myeloablative allogeneic HCT in AYAs with Ph-negative ALL in CR1, with 5-year OS of 66% vs 47%.

Effect: improvement; HR 2.00 (HCT vs chemotherapy); CI: 95% CI 1.5–2.66

Pediatric-style post-remission chemotherapy produced superior overall survival compared to myeloablative allogeneic HCT in AYAs with Ph-negative ALL in CR1, with 5-year OS of 66% vs 47%.

Effect: improvement; HR 2.00 (HCT vs chemotherapy); CI: 95% CI 1.5–2.66

Pediatric-style post-remission chemotherapy produced superior overall survival compared to myeloablative allogeneic HCT in AYAs with Ph-negative ALL in CR1, with 5-year OS of 66% vs 47%.

Effect: improvement; HR 2.00 (HCT vs chemotherapy); CI: 95% CI 1.5–2.66

Pediatric-style post-remission chemotherapy produced superior overall survival compared to myeloablative allogeneic HCT in AYAs with Ph-negative ALL in CR1, with 5-year OS of 66% vs 47%.

Effect: improvement; HR 2.00 (HCT vs chemotherapy); CI: 95% CI 1.5–2.66

Pediatric-style post-remission chemotherapy produced superior overall survival compared to myeloablative allogeneic HCT in AYAs with Ph-negative ALL in CR1, with 5-year OS of 66% vs 47%.

Effect: improvement; HR 2.00 (HCT vs chemotherapy); CI: 95% CI 1.5–2.66

Pediatric-style post-remission chemotherapy produced superior overall survival compared to myeloablative allogeneic HCT in AYAs with Ph-negative ALL in CR1, with 5-year OS of 66% vs 47%.

Effect: improvement; HR 2.00 (HCT vs chemotherapy); CI: 95% CI 1.5–2.66

Pediatric-style post-remission chemotherapy produced superior overall survival compared to myeloablative allogeneic HCT in AYAs with Ph-negative ALL in CR1, with 5-year OS of 66% vs 47%.

Effect: improvement; HR 2.00 (HCT vs chemotherapy); CI: 95% CI 1.5–2.66

Pediatric-style post-remission chemotherapy produced superior overall survival compared to myeloablative allogeneic HCT in AYAs with Ph-negative ALL in CR1, with 5-year OS of 66% vs 47%.

Effect: improvement; HR 2.00 (HCT vs chemotherapy); CI: 95% CI 1.5–2.66

Pediatric-style post-remission chemotherapy produced superior overall survival compared to myeloablative allogeneic HCT in AYAs with Ph-negative ALL in CR1, with 5-year OS of 66% vs 47%.

Effect: improvement; HR 2.00 (HCT vs chemotherapy); CI: 95% CI 1.5–2.66

Pediatric-style post-remission chemotherapy produced superior overall survival compared to myeloablative allogeneic HCT in AYAs with Ph-negative ALL in CR1, with 5-year OS of 66% vs 47%.

Effect: improvement; HR 2.00 (HCT vs chemotherapy); CI: 95% CI 1.5–2.66

Pediatric-style post-remission chemotherapy produced superior overall survival compared to myeloablative allogeneic HCT in AYAs with Ph-negative ALL in CR1, with 5-year OS of 66% vs 47%.

Effect: improvement; HR 2.00 (HCT vs chemotherapy); CI: 95% CI 1.5–2.66

Pediatric-style post-remission chemotherapy produced superior overall survival compared to myeloablative allogeneic HCT in AYAs with Ph-negative ALL in CR1, with 5-year OS of 66% vs 47%.

Effect: improvement; HR 2.00 (HCT vs chemotherapy); CI: 95% CI 1.5–2.66

Pediatric-style post-remission chemotherapy produced superior overall survival compared to myeloablative allogeneic HCT in AYAs with Ph-negative ALL in CR1, with 5-year OS of 66% vs 47%.

Effect: improvement; HR 2.00 (HCT vs chemotherapy); CI: 95% CI 1.5–2.66

Pediatric-style post-remission chemotherapy produced superior overall survival compared to myeloablative allogeneic HCT in AYAs with Ph-negative ALL in CR1, with 5-year OS of 66% vs 47%.

Effect: improvement; HR 2.00 (HCT vs chemotherapy); CI: 95% CI 1.5–2.66

Pediatric-style post-remission chemotherapy produced superior overall survival compared to myeloablative allogeneic HCT in AYAs with Ph-negative ALL in CR1, with 5-year OS of 66% vs 47%.

Effect: improvement; HR 2.00 (HCT vs chemotherapy); CI: 95% CI 1.5–2.66

Pediatric-style post-remission chemotherapy produced superior overall survival compared to myeloablative allogeneic HCT in AYAs with Ph-negative ALL in CR1, with 5-year OS of 66% vs 47%.

Effect: improvement; HR 2.00 (HCT vs chemotherapy); CI: 95% CI 1.5–2.66

Pediatric-style chemotherapy produced superior disease-free survival compared to myeloablative allogeneic HCT in AYAs with Ph-negative ALL in CR1.

Effect: improvement; HR 1.62 (HCT vs chemotherapy); CI: 95% CI 1.25–2.12

Pediatric-style chemotherapy produced superior disease-free survival compared to myeloablative allogeneic HCT in AYAs with Ph-negative ALL in CR1.

Effect: improvement; HR 1.62 (HCT vs chemotherapy); CI: 95% CI 1.25–2.12

Pediatric-style chemotherapy produced superior disease-free survival compared to myeloablative allogeneic HCT in AYAs with Ph-negative ALL in CR1.

Effect: improvement; HR 1.62 (HCT vs chemotherapy); CI: 95% CI 1.25–2.12

Pediatric-style chemotherapy produced superior disease-free survival compared to myeloablative allogeneic HCT in AYAs with Ph-negative ALL in CR1.

Effect: improvement; HR 1.62 (HCT vs chemotherapy); CI: 95% CI 1.25–2.12

Pediatric-style chemotherapy produced superior disease-free survival compared to myeloablative allogeneic HCT in AYAs with Ph-negative ALL in CR1.

Effect: improvement; HR 1.62 (HCT vs chemotherapy); CI: 95% CI 1.25–2.12

Pediatric-style chemotherapy produced superior disease-free survival compared to myeloablative allogeneic HCT in AYAs with Ph-negative ALL in CR1.

Effect: improvement; HR 1.62 (HCT vs chemotherapy); CI: 95% CI 1.25–2.12

Pediatric-style chemotherapy produced superior disease-free survival compared to myeloablative allogeneic HCT in AYAs with Ph-negative ALL in CR1.

Effect: improvement; HR 1.62 (HCT vs chemotherapy); CI: 95% CI 1.25–2.12

Pediatric-style chemotherapy produced superior disease-free survival compared to myeloablative allogeneic HCT in AYAs with Ph-negative ALL in CR1.

Effect: improvement; HR 1.62 (HCT vs chemotherapy); CI: 95% CI 1.25–2.12

Pediatric-style chemotherapy produced superior disease-free survival compared to myeloablative allogeneic HCT in AYAs with Ph-negative ALL in CR1.

Effect: improvement; HR 1.62 (HCT vs chemotherapy); CI: 95% CI 1.25–2.12

Pediatric-style chemotherapy produced superior disease-free survival compared to myeloablative allogeneic HCT in AYAs with Ph-negative ALL in CR1.

Effect: improvement; HR 1.62 (HCT vs chemotherapy); CI: 95% CI 1.25–2.12

Pediatric-style chemotherapy produced superior disease-free survival compared to myeloablative allogeneic HCT in AYAs with Ph-negative ALL in CR1.

Effect: improvement; HR 1.62 (HCT vs chemotherapy); CI: 95% CI 1.25–2.12

Pediatric-style chemotherapy produced superior disease-free survival compared to myeloablative allogeneic HCT in AYAs with Ph-negative ALL in CR1.

Effect: improvement; HR 1.62 (HCT vs chemotherapy); CI: 95% CI 1.25–2.12

Pediatric-style chemotherapy produced superior disease-free survival compared to myeloablative allogeneic HCT in AYAs with Ph-negative ALL in CR1.

Effect: improvement; HR 1.62 (HCT vs chemotherapy); CI: 95% CI 1.25–2.12

Pediatric-style chemotherapy produced superior disease-free survival compared to myeloablative allogeneic HCT in AYAs with Ph-negative ALL in CR1.

Effect: improvement; HR 1.62 (HCT vs chemotherapy); CI: 95% CI 1.25–2.12

Pediatric-style chemotherapy produced superior disease-free survival compared to myeloablative allogeneic HCT in AYAs with Ph-negative ALL in CR1.

Effect: improvement; HR 1.62 (HCT vs chemotherapy); CI: 95% CI 1.25–2.12

Pediatric-style chemotherapy produced superior disease-free survival compared to myeloablative allogeneic HCT in AYAs with Ph-negative ALL in CR1.

Effect: improvement; HR 1.62 (HCT vs chemotherapy); CI: 95% CI 1.25–2.12

Pediatric-style chemotherapy produced superior disease-free survival compared to myeloablative allogeneic HCT in AYAs with Ph-negative ALL in CR1.

Effect: improvement; HR 1.62 (HCT vs chemotherapy); CI: 95% CI 1.25–2.12

Pediatric-style chemotherapy produced superior disease-free survival compared to myeloablative allogeneic HCT in AYAs with Ph-negative ALL in CR1.

Effect: improvement; HR 1.62 (HCT vs chemotherapy); CI: 95% CI 1.25–2.12

Pediatric-style chemotherapy produced superior disease-free survival compared to myeloablative allogeneic HCT in AYAs with Ph-negative ALL in CR1.

Effect: improvement; HR 1.62 (HCT vs chemotherapy); CI: 95% CI 1.25–2.12

Pediatric-style chemotherapy produced superior disease-free survival compared to myeloablative allogeneic HCT in AYAs with Ph-negative ALL in CR1.

Effect: improvement; HR 1.62 (HCT vs chemotherapy); CI: 95% CI 1.25–2.12

Pediatric-style chemotherapy produced superior disease-free survival compared to myeloablative allogeneic HCT in AYAs with Ph-negative ALL in CR1.

Effect: improvement; HR 1.62 (HCT vs chemotherapy); CI: 95% CI 1.25–2.12

Pediatric-style chemotherapy produced superior disease-free survival compared to myeloablative allogeneic HCT in AYAs with Ph-negative ALL in CR1.

Effect: improvement; HR 1.62 (HCT vs chemotherapy); CI: 95% CI 1.25–2.12

Pediatric-style chemotherapy produced superior disease-free survival compared to myeloablative allogeneic HCT in AYAs with Ph-negative ALL in CR1.

Effect: improvement; HR 1.62 (HCT vs chemotherapy); CI: 95% CI 1.25–2.12