In univariate analysis, non-myeloablative transplants were associated with an apparent greater risk of disease progression or relapse, 55% at 6 years for non-myeloablative compared with 34% for ablative conditioning. When adjusted for competing risks of death due to higher TRM associated with ablative transplants, however, these differences were not statistically significant. Although this result does not appear to agree with the analysis of others such as the EBMT registry data, the study was only a univariate analysis and did not account for competing causes of death, as ours did. 25 Nevertheless, the amount of residual disease present at transplant, provides a greater challenge for clearance by the allogeneic donor graft when a non-myeloablative regimen is utilized and is still the primary cause of treatment failure. When comparing the incidences of chronic GVHD, 27% of the ablative recipients developed CGVHD compared with 66% for non-ablative recipients. As the risk of CGVHD is time-dependent, and more nonmyeloablative patients survived the early phases of transplant, this did not prove to be significantly higher when adjusted for competing causes of death.