MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2549419806 · doi:10.1182/blood.v124.21.4554.4554

Retrospective Analysis of Allogeneic Transplant Outcomes in Chronic Myeloid Leukemia Patients with Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors Failure

2014· article· en· W2549419806 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Dennis Dong Hwan Kim, Isabelle Bence‐Bruckler, Christopher Hillis, Irwin Walker, Suzanne Kamel‐Reid, Jeffrey H. Lipton

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2014
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueChronic Myeloid Leukemia Treatments
Établissements canadiensUniversity of TorontoToronto General HospitalJuravinski HospitalMcMaster UniversityPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineInternal medicineTransplantationNilotinibRetrospective cohort studyMyeloid leukemiaDasatinibBlast CrisisGastroenterologyImatinib

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract BACKGROUND: Allogeneic hematopietic cell transplantation (HCT) is still an important option of treatment in CML patients failing respond to tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). The revised European LeukemiaNet 2013 suggests HCT to be reserved for the patients in chronic phase (CP) unless resistant or intolerant to at least one second-generation TKI. The present retrospective study attempted to evaluate transplant outcomes in 85 CML patients with TKI failure, and to compare their long-term outcomes with TKI naïve or high risk CML patients responsive to TKIs transplanted in the contemporary period between 2002 and 2014. METHODS: A total of 85 patients with TKI failure CML were transplanted in 3 transplant centers in Canada (Toronto, Hamilton and Ottawa) performed between 2002 and 2014. We reviewed the transplant outcomes of CML patients with TKI-resistance (n=74) or intolerance (n=11) with poor (n=7) or good response to TKI (n=4). TKI resistance group (group A) includes CP1 (n=26), CP2/3 (n=29) or accelerated [AP]/ blastic crisis [BC] (n=19) at HCT, while TKI intolerant group (group B) includes CP1 (n=9) or CP2/3 (n=2) at HCT. In 12 patients (14.1%), ABL domain mutations were noted as follow in 11 patients including T315I (n=6). Emergence of additional cytogenetic abnormalities (ACAs) in Ph+ clones prior to HCT was noted in 21 patients while 6 patients showed clonal evolution (CE) in Ph(-) clone. Seventy five patients (88%) received myeloablative conditioning, with 48 (57%) from unrelated donor. As a control, 33 CML patients transplanted between 2002 and 2012 but without TKI failure were included for comparison. They were TKI naïve CP (n=22) or high risk (i.e. AP or BC) with good response to TKI (n=11). Overall survival (OS), non-relapse mortality (NRM) and relapse incidence were analyzed. Outcomes of post-transplant TKI therapy were also evaluated for planned TKI (n=3) or for treatment of relapsed CML (n=16). Serial BCR-ABL transcript levels in the first 12 months were analyzed for Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. RESULTS: With a median follow-up duration of 113 months among survivors in patients with TKI failure, the 3-year OS rate and relapse incidence was 45±6% and 35±3%, respectively. NRM was 40±7% at 3 year. Fifty nine patients (69%) responded to HSCT: 43 (51%) achieved MR4.5 within first 12 months post-transplant. Median time to achieve major molecular response (MMR) and MR4.5 after HCT was 4 months and 10 months. Post-transplant TKI therapy was given in 16 patients as planned (n=2) or for treatment of relapse (n=14; hematologic, n=10; cytogenetic, n=1; molecular relapse, n=3). Out of 16 patients, 5 patients relapsed within median of 39 months. There was no difference in progression between the groups with hematologic vs cytogenetic/molecular relapse (p=0.39). Transplant outcomes were compared according to the disease stage at HCT. Significant differences were noted within TKI failure group with OS rate at 3 years being 66%, 32% and 24% for those in in CP1, CP2/3 and AP/BC. The 3 year OS was significantly worse in the group with ABL domain mutation (22%) than those without mutation (50%) in TKI failure group (p=0.01). However, no difference of OS was observed according to the presence of ACAs (p=0.60) or CE in Ph(-) clones (p=0.26). With a total of 118 patients, transplant outcomes were also compared among the 4 groups (i.e. A. TKI resistance [n=74], B. TKI intolerance [n=11], C. high risk with good response to TKI [n=11], D. TKI naïve [n=22]). High risk group (group C) includes CP2/3 (n=10) or AP (n=1) at HCT and CP (n=3), AP (n=4) or BC (n=4) at diagnosis, while TKI naïve group (group D) includes CP1 (n=21) or CP2 (n=1) at HCT and CP (n=21) or AP (n=1) at diagnosis. The OS was significantly different in favor of group D (86%) > C (71%) = B (68%) > 41% (A) at 3 years (p=0.002; Figure). Relapse incidence at 3 year was lowest in D (11%) followed by C (23%), A (32%) and B (60%). Serial BCR-ABL transcript monitoring in first 12 months showed rapid decline of the level in the first 3 months, then decrease gradually to 12 months. ROC analysis suggested 4.3 log reduction at 3 months as strong predictive level of MR4.5 achievement in first 12 months after HCT with AUC of 0.916 (sensitivity, 73.1% and specificity, 100%). CONCLUSION: Allogeneic HCT remains an important treatment option in patients with TKI failure even in the era of multiple available TKIs. The 3 months BCR-ABL transcript level may guide initiation of post-HCT TKI. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Walker: Sanofi: Research Funding.

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 enseignants0,017
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,033

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
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
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)0,0010,000

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 Opus0,005
Tête enseignante GPT0,215
Écart entre enseignants0,210 · 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

Citations1
Publié2014
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBloodMême sujetChronic Myeloid Leukemia TreatmentsTravaux en français237 207