MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2292463206 · doi:10.1182/blood.v122.21.3969.3969

Sorafenib Treatment Following Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplant In Pediatric FLT3/ITD+ AML

2013· article· en· W2292463206 sur OpenAlexaff
Jessica A. Pollard, Bill H. Chang, Todd M. Cooper, Thomas Groß, Sumit Gupta, Phoenix A. Ho, Suzanne McGoldrick, Tanya Watt, India Sisler, Blythe Thomson, Ann E. Woolfrey, Soheil Meshinchi

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2013
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueAcute Myeloid Leukemia Research
Établissements canadiensHospital for Sick Children
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineSorafenibTolerabilityInternal medicineHematopoietic stem cell transplantationOncologyRetrospective cohort studyTransplantationContext (archaeology)PediatricsSurgeryAdverse effectHepatocellular carcinoma

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Internal tandem duplications of the FLT3 gene (FLT3/ITD) portend poor outcome in both adult and pediatric AML and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) is often performed. Unfortunately, approximately 35% of patients will have disease recurrence despite HSCT and curative options are limited in that context. Sorafenib is an oral multi-target tyrosine kinase with demonstrable efficacy in this AML subtype. Moreover, retrospective studies in adults with FLT3/ITD+ AML suggest tolerability and potential clinical benefit of sorafenib when used in the post HSCT setting for treatment of early relapse or minimal residual disease (MRD) emergence. There is limited published data regarding sorafenib’s tolerability and efficacy following HSCT in pediatric FLT3/ITD+ AML. We report here a retrospective review of our experience. We conducted a retrospective study of pediatric FLT3/ITD+ patients treated with allogeneic HSCT followed by sorafenib in the first 18 months following HSCT. Between March 2008 and March 2012, 13 FLT3/ITD+ pediatric patients at 7 HSCT centers met criteria for study inclusion. Median age at time of treatment was 14 years (range 6-21 years) and 6/14 (46%) were male. 9 patients underwent matched family donor HSCT and 4 had a matched unrelated donor. Sorafenib was initiated early after HSCT (median: 66 days, range 44-170 days) as prophylaxis in 5 patients who were considered to have very high risk features including failure to achieve clinical remission (CR) following first course of chemotherapy (N=2), high allelic ratio FLT3/ITD at diagnosis (N=1) and MRD at time of HSCT (N=2). For the remainder, sorafenib was given after sign of relapse (MRD or morphologic) at a median of 90 days (range 45-480 days) following HSCT. 11/13 patients received single agent therapy; 2 patients with morphologic relapse received additional chemotherapy (N=1) or radiotherapy (N=1). Among the entire group, post HSCT sorafenib therapy was initiated a median of 80 days following HSCT (range 44-480 days) at a median dose of 150 mg/m2/day (range 75-340 mg/m2/day) and continued for a median of 12 months (range 0.5-52 months). 9/13 patients (69%) experienced toxicity which was felt to be medically significant including thrombocytopenia (N=2), rash (N=3), anorexia (N=1), myelosuppression (N=3), infection (N=2) and life threatening cardiac dysfunction (N=1 in patient treated concomitantly with mitoxantrone). In 8/13 cases (61%) the toxicity resulted in reduction or temporary discontinuation of sorafenib yet all patients tolerated retrial of drug at the same or reduced dosing. One additional patient experienced dose limiting marrow hypoplasia at dosing of 340 mg/m2/day. Sorafenib did not appear to exacerbate GVHD. 8/13 (62%) patients had controlled GHVD at time of sorafenib initiation and only 2 patients had subsequent skin flare that was temporally associated with wean of immune suppression and did not preclude use of further sorafenib. Overall, 10/13 (77%) patients remain alive and 7/13 (54%) are disease free. Of 7 patients in continued CR, the median survival is 3.6 years from HSCT (range 1.75-5.6 years); 6/7 are off sorafenib therapy for a median of 10.5 months (range 7-36 months) after receiving treatment for a median of 19 months (range 8-52 months). 6/13 patients (46%) experienced progressive or recurrent disease while on therapy, 3 of whom have died: 2 from rapid disease progression despite sorafenib initiation and 1 from wild-type FLT3 recurrence. 3 additional patients with recurrent disease are receiving salvage therapy, 1 of whom has achieved a 2nd CR. Of particular interest is the outcome of patients who received sorafenib for MRD in the peri transplant period. All 5 remain alive and disease-free a median of 3.6 years from HSCT (range 1.75-5.6 years) and have been off sorafenib for a median of 12 months (range 7-36 months). Conversely, of the 5 patients who started treatment for morphologic recurrence, only 1/5 (20%) remain in CR. Of 3 additional patients who received prophylactic treatment for high AR or poor induction response, 2/3 have recurred, 1 of whom is now in 2ndCR with higher dose sorafenib in combination with conventional chemotherapy. Our study suggests that sorafenib is tolerable and may improve survival for pediatric patients who undergo HSCT for FLT3/ITD+ AML. Prospective study is necessary to further confirm tolerability and to determine the scope of clinical benefit for this high risk population. Disclosures: Off Label Use: Sorafenib use in AML will be discussed.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,001
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,002

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,015
Tête enseignante GPT0,251
Écart entre enseignants0,235 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations5
Publié2013
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBloodMême sujetAcute Myeloid Leukemia ResearchTravaux en français237 207