MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2979825973 · doi:10.1182/blood.v124.21.3672.3672

Adolescents and Young Adults (AYA) with Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML) Have Increased Treatment-Related Mortality with Similar Outcomes -- a Report from the Children's Oncology Group Trials AAML03P1 and AAML0531

2014· article· en· W2979825973 sur OpenAlexaff
Keith J. August, Richard Aplenc, Lillian Sung, Susana C. Raimondi, Betsy Hirsch, John Horan, Todd A. Alonzo, Robert B. Gerbing, Yi-Cheng Wang, Samir B. Kahwash, Amy Heerema‐McKenney, Soheil Meshinchi, Alan S. Gamis

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2014
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueAcute Myeloid Leukemia Research
Établissements canadiensHospital for Sick Children
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineInternal medicinePopulationInduction chemotherapyChemotherapyAdverse effectChemotherapy regimenOncologyPediatrics

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Background: AYA patients with cancer comprise a unique and understudied population with higher treatment-related toxicity than younger children. Objective: To describe the outcome of AYA patients with AML treated with intensive chemotherapy and GO. Methods: AYA patients (ages 16-21) on Children’s Oncology Group (COG) trials AAML03P1 and AAML0531 were analyzed and compared to younger patients. Both trials included patients with newly diagnosed AML. Differences in disease characteristics, treatment response, treatment-related mortality (TRM) and relapse risk (RR) were compared. Patients received either 5 chemotherapy courses or 3 followed by stem cell transplant (SCT) dependent on donor availability alone in 03P1, and risk stratification and donor availability in 0531. On AAML0531, patients with t(8;21) or inv(16) were considered low risk and did not receive SCT. High risk patients had adverse cytogenetics (-7, -5/5q-), high FLT3-ITD HAR (>0.4) or slow response with >15% marrow disease after induction 1. High risk patients received SCT if any donor was available. All other patients were intermediate risk and received SCT if a matched family donor was available. GO (3 mg/m2/dose) was administered to all patients on AAML03P1 while patients on AAML0531 were randomized to treatment with or without GO. Patients scheduled to receive GO received one dose on induction 1, day 6, and for patients that did not proceed to SCT, a second dose was given on intensification 2, day 7. Results: A total of 1350 patients 21 years old and younger were studied. Significantly different characteristics of AYA compared to younger patients are presented in Table 1, whereas gender, race, ethnicity, t(8;21) and inv(16) were similar between age groups. Table 1: Significant differences by age Age < 16 Years (n=1144) Age 16-21 Years (n=206) p value Normal Cytogenetics 225 (20.5%) 70 (36.5%) <0.001 11q23/MLL rearrangement 256 (23.3%) 22 (11.5%) <0.001 FLT3-ITD high allelic ratio 146 (14.3%) 37 (20%) 0.047 CEBPα mutation 46 (4.8%) 17 (9.4%) 0.012 NPM mutation 58 (6%) 23 (12.8%) 0.001 Death before remission 25 (2.4%) 5 (2.5%) 0.803 CR after Induction I 826 (74.1%) 165 (82.1%) 0.015 MRD negative after Induction I 572 (68.3%) 123 (76.4%) 0.042 5 year EFS and OS from study entry was 44.2% and 60.0% for AYA patients compared to 50.2% and 64.8% for younger patients (p=NS). AYA patients had significantly higher TRM when compared to younger patients: 13.3% vs. 7.3% from study entry (p=0.005) primarily due to death in remission, 12.4% vs. 5.6% (p=0.004). Despite similar 5 yr relapse rates after achieving remission, 38.8% vs, 36.7%, 5 yr DFS (48.8% vs. 57.7%, p=0.058) and OS (63.7% vs. 70.9%, p=0.067) from end of induction 2 trended worse for AYA patients, reflective of the increased treatment-related death in remission. AYA patients that received GO combined with chemotherapy had similar EFS and OS compared to those treated without GO (Figure 1). TRM in AYA patients treated with GO was significantly higher compared to younger patients (15.5% vs. 8.6%, p=0.014). In younger patients, while GO added to chemotherapy did not result in improved OS, a significant improvement in EFS was seen. For these patients, the decrease in the relapse rate was not offset by an increased TRM as was seen in AYA patients (Table 2). Table 2. Differences in outcomes by use of GO GO No GO p value AYA patients (16-21 years) n=137 n=69 5 year OS 60.8% 58.5% 0.682 5 year EFS 44.3% 44.9% 0.754 5 year TRM 15.5% 8.7% 0.21 5 year RR* 36.7% 42.5% 0.262 Younger patients (<16 years) n=706 n=438 5 year OS 65.5% 63.7% 0.580 5 year EFS 52.8% 46.0% 0.018 5 year TRM 8.6% 5.3% 0.045 5 year RR* 32.9% 42.6% <0.001 *In CR patients (AYA GO n=114; no GO n=59; <16y GO n=577, no GO 356) SCT outcomes by age group revealed similar results with increased TRM among AYA SCT recipients (n=37) compared to younger SCT recipients (n=172) (18.9% v 7.8%, p=0.027) and resulted in a lower 5 yr DFS (50.1% v 62.7%, p=0.214) despite similar RR (31% v 29.5%, p=0.854). Conclusion: AYA patients on these studies experienced lower OS and EFS when compared to younger patients. The favorable impacts of GO and SCT were abrogated in AYA patients due to higher TRM negating the improved RR with their use. In the AYA population, further focus upon reducing TRM is needed in order to achieve similar benefits. Figure 1. EFS by age group and GO use Figure 1. EFS by age group and GO use A report from the Children’s Oncology Group Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

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)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,002
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 enseignants0,002
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,009

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,001
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0010,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
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 Opus0,016
Tête enseignante GPT0,291
Écart entre enseignants0,274 · 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

Citations8
Publié2014
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBlood→Même sujetAcute Myeloid Leukemia Research→Travaux en français237 207→