Overall survival

Obesity was independently associated with inferior OS, inferior DFS, increased relapse, and increased NRM in AYAs with Ph-negative ALL, regardless of whether they received chemotherapy or HCT.

Effect: decline; HR 2.17 (obese vs non-obese, OS); CI: 95% CI 1.63–2.89

Obesity was independently associated with inferior OS, inferior DFS, increased relapse, and increased NRM in AYAs with Ph-negative ALL, regardless of whether they received chemotherapy or HCT.

Effect: decline; HR 2.17 (obese vs non-obese, OS); CI: 95% CI 1.63–2.89

Obesity was independently associated with inferior OS, inferior DFS, increased relapse, and increased NRM in AYAs with Ph-negative ALL, regardless of whether they received chemotherapy or HCT.

Effect: decline; HR 2.17 (obese vs non-obese, OS); CI: 95% CI 1.63–2.89

Obesity was independently associated with inferior OS, inferior DFS, increased relapse, and increased NRM in AYAs with Ph-negative ALL, regardless of whether they received chemotherapy or HCT.

Effect: decline; HR 2.17 (obese vs non-obese, OS); CI: 95% CI 1.63–2.89

Obesity was independently associated with inferior OS, inferior DFS, increased relapse, and increased NRM in AYAs with Ph-negative ALL, regardless of whether they received chemotherapy or HCT.

Effect: decline; HR 2.17 (obese vs non-obese, OS); CI: 95% CI 1.63–2.89

Obesity was independently associated with inferior OS, inferior DFS, increased relapse, and increased NRM in AYAs with Ph-negative ALL, regardless of whether they received chemotherapy or HCT.

Effect: decline; HR 2.17 (obese vs non-obese, OS); CI: 95% CI 1.63–2.89

Obesity was independently associated with inferior OS, inferior DFS, increased relapse, and increased NRM in AYAs with Ph-negative ALL, regardless of whether they received chemotherapy or HCT.

Effect: decline; HR 2.17 (obese vs non-obese, OS); CI: 95% CI 1.63–2.89

Obesity was independently associated with inferior OS, inferior DFS, increased relapse, and increased NRM in AYAs with Ph-negative ALL, regardless of whether they received chemotherapy or HCT.

Effect: decline; HR 2.17 (obese vs non-obese, OS); CI: 95% CI 1.63–2.89

Obesity was independently associated with inferior OS, inferior DFS, increased relapse, and increased NRM in AYAs with Ph-negative ALL, regardless of whether they received chemotherapy or HCT.

Effect: decline; HR 2.17 (obese vs non-obese, OS); CI: 95% CI 1.63–2.89

Obesity was independently associated with inferior OS, inferior DFS, increased relapse, and increased NRM in AYAs with Ph-negative ALL, regardless of whether they received chemotherapy or HCT.

Effect: decline; HR 2.17 (obese vs non-obese, OS); CI: 95% CI 1.63–2.89

Obesity was independently associated with inferior OS, inferior DFS, increased relapse, and increased NRM in AYAs with Ph-negative ALL, regardless of whether they received chemotherapy or HCT.

Effect: decline; HR 2.17 (obese vs non-obese, OS); CI: 95% CI 1.63–2.89

Obesity was independently associated with inferior OS, inferior DFS, increased relapse, and increased NRM in AYAs with Ph-negative ALL, regardless of whether they received chemotherapy or HCT.

Effect: decline; HR 2.17 (obese vs non-obese, OS); CI: 95% CI 1.63–2.89

Obesity was independently associated with inferior OS, inferior DFS, increased relapse, and increased NRM in AYAs with Ph-negative ALL, regardless of whether they received chemotherapy or HCT.

Effect: decline; HR 2.17 (obese vs non-obese, OS); CI: 95% CI 1.63–2.89

Obesity was independently associated with inferior OS, inferior DFS, increased relapse, and increased NRM in AYAs with Ph-negative ALL, regardless of whether they received chemotherapy or HCT.

Effect: decline; HR 2.17 (obese vs non-obese, OS); CI: 95% CI 1.63–2.89

Obesity was independently associated with inferior OS, inferior DFS, increased relapse, and increased NRM in AYAs with Ph-negative ALL, regardless of whether they received chemotherapy or HCT.

Effect: decline; HR 2.17 (obese vs non-obese, OS); CI: 95% CI 1.63–2.89

Obesity was independently associated with inferior OS, inferior DFS, increased relapse, and increased NRM in AYAs with Ph-negative ALL, regardless of whether they received chemotherapy or HCT.

Effect: decline; HR 2.17 (obese vs non-obese, OS); CI: 95% CI 1.63–2.89

Obesity was independently associated with inferior OS, inferior DFS, increased relapse, and increased NRM in AYAs with Ph-negative ALL, regardless of whether they received chemotherapy or HCT.

Effect: decline; HR 2.17 (obese vs non-obese, OS); CI: 95% CI 1.63–2.89

Obesity was independently associated with inferior OS, inferior DFS, increased relapse, and increased NRM in AYAs with Ph-negative ALL, regardless of whether they received chemotherapy or HCT.

Effect: decline; HR 2.17 (obese vs non-obese, OS); CI: 95% CI 1.63–2.89

Obesity was independently associated with inferior OS, inferior DFS, increased relapse, and increased NRM in AYAs with Ph-negative ALL, regardless of whether they received chemotherapy or HCT.

Effect: decline; HR 2.17 (obese vs non-obese, OS); CI: 95% CI 1.63–2.89

Obesity was independently associated with inferior OS, inferior DFS, increased relapse, and increased NRM in AYAs with Ph-negative ALL, regardless of whether they received chemotherapy or HCT.

Effect: decline; HR 2.17 (obese vs non-obese, OS); CI: 95% CI 1.63–2.89

Obesity was independently associated with inferior OS, inferior DFS, increased relapse, and increased NRM in AYAs with Ph-negative ALL, regardless of whether they received chemotherapy or HCT.

Effect: decline; HR 2.17 (obese vs non-obese, OS); CI: 95% CI 1.63–2.89

Obesity was independently associated with inferior OS, inferior DFS, increased relapse, and increased NRM in AYAs with Ph-negative ALL, regardless of whether they received chemotherapy or HCT.

Effect: decline; HR 2.17 (obese vs non-obese, OS); CI: 95% CI 1.63–2.89

Obesity was independently associated with inferior OS, inferior DFS, increased relapse, and increased NRM in AYAs with Ph-negative ALL, regardless of whether they received chemotherapy or HCT.

Effect: decline; HR 2.17 (obese vs non-obese, OS); CI: 95% CI 1.63–2.89

Obesity was independently associated with inferior OS, inferior DFS, increased relapse, and increased NRM in AYAs with Ph-negative ALL, regardless of whether they received chemotherapy or HCT.

Effect: decline; HR 2.17 (obese vs non-obese, OS); CI: 95% CI 1.63–2.89

Obesity was independently associated with inferior OS, inferior DFS, increased relapse, and increased NRM in AYAs with Ph-negative ALL, regardless of whether they received chemotherapy or HCT.

Effect: decline; HR 2.17 (obese vs non-obese, OS); CI: 95% CI 1.63–2.89

Obesity was independently associated with inferior OS, inferior DFS, increased relapse, and increased NRM in AYAs with Ph-negative ALL, regardless of whether they received chemotherapy or HCT.

Effect: decline; HR 2.17 (obese vs non-obese, OS); CI: 95% CI 1.63–2.89

Obesity was independently associated with inferior OS, inferior DFS, increased relapse, and increased NRM in AYAs with Ph-negative ALL, regardless of whether they received chemotherapy or HCT.

Effect: decline; HR 2.17 (obese vs non-obese, OS); CI: 95% CI 1.63–2.89

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