MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3095670088 · doi:10.1182/blood-2020-143165

Outcomes of Patients with Down Syndrome and <i>CRLF2</i>-Overexpressing Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia (ALL): A Report from the Children's Oncology Group (COG)

2020· article· en· W3095670088 sur OpenAlexaff
Karen R. Rabin, Meenakshi Devidas, Zhiguo Chen, Yunfeng Dai, Sarah K. Tasian, Johann Hitzler, Kathryn G. Roberts, Andrew J. Carroll, Nyla A. Heerema, Michael J. Borowitz, Brent L. Wood, Charles G. Mullighan, Richard C. Harvey, I-Ming L. Chen, Cheryl L. Willman, Shalini C. Reshmi, Julie M. Gastier‐Foster, Kelly W. Maloney, Eric Larsen, Reuven J. Schore, Michael J. Burke, Wanda L. Salzer, Naomi Winick, William L. Carroll, Elizabeth A. Raetz, Anne Angiolillo, Mignon L. Loh, Stephen P. Hunger

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2020
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueAcute Lymphoblastic Leukemia research
Établissements canadiensHospital for Sick Children
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineInternal medicineMinimal residual diseaseOncologyClinical significanceCogDown syndromeExact testLeukemia

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Background: Patients with Down syndrome (DS) have an approximately 10-fold increased risk of developing ALL, and the spectrum of genetic alterations differs from that of non-DS ALL. Rearrangement and/or overexpression of cytokine receptor-like factor 2 (CRLF2+) occurs in 50% of DS ALL, compared to only 5-10% CRLF2+ cases in non-DS children and adolescents. JAK2 or JAK1 mutations co-occur in about half of CRLF2+ cases in both DS and non-DS ALL. The prognostic significance of CRLF2+ ALL also appears to differ in the limited data reported to date, with less adverse impact in patients with DS compared to non-DS ALL. Here, we report the clinical characteristics and prognostic significance of B-ALL with CRLF2 overexpression and JAK alterations in children and adolescents/young adults (AYA) with DS who were treated on Children's Oncology Group (COG) clinical trials from 2003-2016. Methods: We analyzed clinical, laboratory, and outcome data for 317 patients with DS B-ALL treated on standard risk (SR) trials AALL0331 and AALL0932 and high risk (HR) trials AALL0232 and AALL1131, for whom CRLF2 status and rearrangement partners (IGH or P2RY8) were ascertained by flow cytometric assessment of surface expression; fluorescence in situ hybridization; and/or polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing. JAK mutations were ascertained in a subset by PCR and sequencing. Minimal residual disease (MRD) was assessed by flow cytometry at the end of induction (EOI) and at end of consolidation (EOC) for a subset of EOI MRD+ patients. Results: We identified 168/317 (53.0%) CRLF2+ cases, and among those assessed for CRLF2 partner, 17/73 (23.3%) were IGH-CRLF2 and 56/73 (76.7%) were P2RY8-CRLF2. In the subset of 165 cases tested for JAK mutations (85 CRLF2- and 80 CRLF2+), 42/165 (25.4%) had JAK mutations, all of which co-occurred in CRLF2+ cases. CRLF2 positivity was significantly associated with younger age at diagnosis: 140/168 (83.3%) of CRLF2+ cases were under 10 years old, versus 106/149 (71.1%) of CRLF2- cases, p<0.01. P2RY8-CRLF2 cases were significantly more likely than IGH-CRLF2 cases to be associated with age under 10 years at diagnosis (92.9% vs 29.4%, p<0.0001), initial white blood count (WBC) <50x103 (80.4% vs 52.9%, p<0.024), National Cancer Institute (NCI) standard risk status (73.2% vs 23.5%, p<0.0002), and day 29 MRD <0.01% (67.9% vs 37.5%, p<0.028). There were no significant associations between JAK mutation status and any clinical features assessed (sex, initial WBC, central nervous system or testicular involvement, NCI risk group, or EOI/EOC MRD). Among patients with neutral cytogenetics (defined as neither favorable [ETV6-RUNX1, double trisomies of chromosomes 4 and 10] nor unfavorable [BCR-ABL1, KMT2A-rearranged, hypodiploid, iAMP21]), survival did not significantly differ between CRLF2+ and CRLF2- patients (Figure 1A,B), either for 5-year event-free survival (EFS) (79.1 +3.6% vs 77.6 +4.7%, p=0.856) or 5-year overall survival (OS) (89.5 ±2.8% vs 84.9 ±4.1%, p=0.674). There were also no significant differences in EFS or OS based on JAK mutation status or CRLF2 partner, although there were trends toward poorer outcomes in the CRLF2+/JAK+ and IGH-CRLF2 subgroups (Figure 1C). Finally, there was no significant difference in 5-year cumulative incidence of relapse (CIR) according to CRLF2 status (CRLF2+ 16.0 +3.0%, CRLF2- 10.6 +2.6%, p=0.179), although there were non-significant trends toward more relapses in CRLF2+ cases overall and in the NCI HR subgroup analysis. Discussion: Whereas CRLF2 and JAK alterations are associated with higher MRD, poorer survival, and increased CIR in patients with high-risk ALL without DS, these alterations do not demonstrate strong adverse prognostic impact in children and AYAs with DS-ALL treated on recent frontline COG trials, although larger sample sizes are needed to adequately assess for possible poorer prognoses associated with the CRLF2+/JAK+ and IGH-CRLF2 subgroups. Regardless, given the frequency of these targetable lesions and the increased risk of relapse and chemotherapy-associated toxicities in patients with DS-ALL, targeted therapies currently under investigation for these genetic lesions may be beneficial to replace some intensive blocks of therapy in DS-ALL with CRLF2 and/or JAK alterations, both to enhance anti-leukemic efficacy and decrease intensive chemotherapy-associated toxicities. Figure 1 Disclosures Tasian: Gilead Sciences: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Research Funding; Aleta Biotherapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Borowitz:Amgen: Honoraria. Mullighan:Illumina: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie, Inc.: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Raetz:Celgene: Other: DSMB member; Pfizer: Other: Institutional research funding. Loh:Pfizer: Other: Institutional Research Funding; Medisix Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Hunger:Novartis: Consultancy; Amgen: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Honoraria.

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)0,001
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 enseignants0,004
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,007

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,001
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 savante0,0010,000
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 Opus0,010
Tête enseignante GPT0,246
Écart entre enseignants0,236 · 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

Citations2
Publié2020
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBloodMême sujetAcute Lymphoblastic Leukemia researchTravaux en français237 207