showed a trendp = 0.07
DP-NP-HVG mismatches showed a trend towards a possible protective effect (HR 0.4, 95% CI 0.2–1.1, p = 0.07), while DP-NP-GVH mismatches conferred no significant benefit (HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.5-2.0, p = 0.9).
DP-NP-HVG mismatches showed a trend towards a possible protective effect (HR 0.4, 95% CI 0.2–1.1, p = 0.07), while DP-NP-GVH mismatches conferred no significant benefit (HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.5-2.0, p = 0.9).
Similarly, PFS was highest in DP-P pairs (52%) compared with others (39%), suggesting a favorable trend that did not reach statistical significance (HR 0.7, 95% CI 0.5–1.03, p = 0.07) (Fig. 3A ).
Two-year OS was higher with DP-P and DP-NP-HVG pairs (54% and 52%, respectively) compared DP-M pairs (43%), though these differences did not reach statistical significance (DP-P vs DP-M: HR 0.8, 95% CI 0.5–1.2, p = 0.3; DP-MM-HVG vs DP-M: HR 0.7, 95% CI 0.3–1.5, p = 0.3) (Fig. 2A ).