Responses were categorized according to the IMWG criteria. 23 If certain data were missing that were required for response categorization, for example immunofixation for CR, the patient was classified as responding in the next lower category. An analysis of OS, PFS, TRM, relapse or progression, acute and chronic GVHD was undertaken. The initial analysis compared outcomes using non-myeloablative conditioning for the allogeneic transplant vs those with myeloablative conditioning. In the analysis of relapse or progression, time-dependent competing risks of treatment failure such as death from TRM were included. Cox regression models for these outcomes were adjusted for patient age (continuous), donor sex, chemotherapy responsive vs resistant disease, related vs unrelated donor, time from diagnosis to transplant (o2.5 years vs 42.5 years), prior radiation, prior number of chemotherapy regimens (continuous), b-2 microglobulin 44.0 either at diagnosis or transplant, and abnormal cytogenetics or FISH either at diagnosis or transplant. Abnormal cytogenetics included multiple abnormalities or any abnormality by conventional cytogenetics other than hyperdiploidy. Abnormal FISH included deletion 13, deletion 17, translocation 4;14, 14;16, or 14;20. Because data were missing for some patients, data available for abnormalities were compared with patients who had no abnormalities and patients with missing data. Subsequent multivariate analyses of risk factors for the same outcomes among patients receiving non-myeloablative conditioning included the factors noted above, plus single allo-SCT vs tandem autologous-allo SCT, and progression after a prior autologous SCT used as stand-alone treatment.