MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3097541653 · doi:10.1182/blood-2020-136609

Sex-Based Disparities in Outcome in Childhood Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia (ALL): A Children's Oncology Group (COG) Report

2020· article· en· W3097541653 sur OpenAlexaff
Sumit Gupta, David T. Teachey, Meenakshi Devidas, Zhiguo Chen, Kimberly P. Dunsmore, Eric Larsen, Kelly W. Maloney, Leonard A. Mattano, Stuart S. Winter, Andrew J. Carroll, Nyla A. Heerema, Michael J. Borowitz, Brent L. Wood, William L. Carroll, Naomi Winick, Elizabeth A. Raetz, 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-clésMedicineCumulative incidenceCogMinimal residual diseaseInternal medicineProportional hazards modelCohortAcute lymphocytic leukemiaPediatricsLeukemiaIncidence (geometry)OncologyLymphoblastic Leukemia

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Survival for children with B and T acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL, T-ALL) has continued to improve. In past cohorts, boys experienced inferior survival outcomes compared to girls. Though reasons are unknown, previous investigators have suggested that these disparities are explained by imbalances in risk factors, such as a higher proportion of T-ALL among boys. We thus examined whether sex-based disparities persist with modern intensive therapy when adjusted for other risk factors. We also determined if patterns of toxicity and treatment failure varied by sex. METHODS: We identified a cohort of patients age 1-30.99 years enrolled on frontline COG trials for B-ALL (standard risk: AALL0331; high risk: AALL0232) and T-ALL (AALL0434) between 2004-2014. Duration of treatment was sex-dependent, with boys receiving an additional year of Maintenance therapy. A limited number of B-ALL patients (those with slow early response or CNS3 status) underwent cranial radiation, while all intermediate and standard risk T-ALL patients did so. Sex-based differences in the distribution of various prognostic factors were explored, including age at diagnosis, initial white blood cell (WBC) count, central nervous system (CNS) status, leukemia cytogenetics, and end Induction minimal residual disease (MRD). Event-free and overall survival (EFS, OS) were compared between boys and girls using log-rank tests and multivariable Cox regression analyses. Finally, we explored sex-based differences in toxicity rates and in the cumulative incidence of specific causes of treatment failure, including treatment-related mortality (TRM), overall relapse, and subcategories of relapse by site. RESULTS: The study cohort included 8,202 patients with B-ALL [4,463 (54.4%) boys] and 1,562 patients with T-ALL [1,161 (74.3%) boys]. Among B-ALL patients, boys were older than girls and slightly more likely to have unfavorable cytogenetics (Table 1). There was no difference in the distribution of initial WBC or CNS status. Among T-ALL patients, boys were again older than girls, but other prognostic factors did not differ by sex (Table 1). B-ALL boys were less likely to be end induction marrow MRD < 0.01% [3,268 (76.1%) vs. 2791 (78.1%); p=0.04] while T-ALL boys were more likely to achieve end induction MRD < 0.01% [659 (59.0%) vs. 221 (56.8%); p=0.01], although in both cases absolute differences were small. EFS and OS were inferior in B-ALL boys compared to girls (5-year: EFS 84.6%±0.6% vs. 86.4%±0.6%; p=0.003; OS 91.7%±0.4% vs. 92.8%±0.5%; p=0.046). The risk of inferior outcomes among B-ALL boys persisted after adjustment for other prognostic factors in both EFS [hazard ratio (HR) 1.18, 95% confidence interval (1.05-1.33); p=0.003] and OS (HR 1.17 (1.00-1.37); p=0.048). There were no sex-based differences in EFS or OS in T-ALL. When examining specific toxicities and causes of treatment failure, osteonecrosis rates were lower among boys [297/5,624 (5.3%) vs. 281/4,140 (6.8%); p=0.002]. The incidence of TRM did not differ by sex. The incidence of relapse was, however, greater in boys than girls with B-ALL (11.2%±0.5% vs. 9.6%±0.5%; p=0.001). This risk was attributable to a higher incidence of relapses involving the CNS (4.2%±0.3% vs. 2.5%±0.3%; p<0.0001) and in other extramedullary sites, including the testes (1.3%±0.2% vs. 0.7%±0.1%; p= 0.001). Notably, there was no difference in the cumulative incidence of isolated bone marrow relapse (5.4%±0.4% vs. 6.2%±0.4%; p=0.49). Among T-ALL patients, there were no sex-based differences in the cumulative incidence of relapse, either overall or by relapse site. CONCLUSIONS: Small sex-based disparities in ALL outcomes persist despite overall improvements, extended treatment duration, and extra intrathecal therapy in boys. This is mainly attributable to a higher risk of CNS relapse in boys with B-ALL, despite no sex-based differences in initial CNS status, and persists when adjusted for other prognostic risk factors. The lack of sex-based disparities in T-ALL by sex may be in part due to an increased use of CNS radiation, given older studies which observed increases in CNS relapse rates among boys but not girls when radiation was eliminated. Future studies to determine the mechanisms underlying this disparity, including potential sex-based differences in steroid metabolism, are warranted. Disclosures Teachey: Amgen: Consultancy; Sobi: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; La Roche: Consultancy. Dunsmore:Dexcom: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Mattano:Melinta Therapeutics: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy. Borowitz:Amgen: Honoraria. Raetz:Pfizer: Research Funding; Celgene/BMS: Other. Loh:Pfizer: Other: Institutional Research Funding; Medisix Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Hunger:Novartis: Consultancy; Amgen Inc.: 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)0,002
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 enseignants0,006
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,012

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,002
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 ouverte0,0000,001
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 Opus0,020
Tête enseignante GPT0,293
Écart entre enseignants0,273 · 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
Publié2020
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBloodMême sujetAcute Lymphoblastic Leukemia researchTravaux en français237 207