MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3213136165 · doi:10.1182/blood-2021-152612

Fitness Assessment of Elderly Patients with AML and Outcomes

2021· article· en· W3213136165 sur OpenAlexaff
Tony HT Chen, Joshua Xu, Hassan Zahreddine, Brian Leber, Irwin Walker, Tobias Berg, Kylie Lepic, Parveen Wasi, Tom Kouroukis, Christopher Hillis, Justin Y. Lee, Dina Khalaf

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2021
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueAcute Myeloid Leukemia Research
Établissements canadiensJuravinski HospitalJuravinski Cancer CentreMcMaster University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineProportional hazards modelCohortRetrospective cohort studyPerformance statusInternal medicineCancerPhysical therapy

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Background: AML is a complex disease that encompasses a huge variation of cytogenetic and mutational backgrounds, which is often complicated by age related functional deficits (Klepin et al. 2013). Given the expanding availability of reduced-intensity treatment options, patient fitness and frailty measures have become increasingly instrumental in the decision between a wide range of treatment options. Furthermore, studies have also demonstrated potential benefits in older patients who receive intensive induction chemotherapy (Julisson 2011), creating a need for additional assessments to identify suitable induction candidates. Some frailty-associated assessments including timed-up-and-go test (TUGT) and the short physical performance battery have been linked to outcomes but are not yet in broad clinical use (Kleplin et al. 2013, Khalaf et al. 2020). To minimize the burden of implementing new patient assessments, we evaluated the utility of commonly available clinical measures of frailty-associated factors including sit-to-stand test and iADL status in predicting patient outcomes. Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study of elderly patients newly diagnosed with AML at Juravinski Cancer Center between Jan 2019 and Dec 2020. We examined a total of 44 patients aged 65+. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS). Significant risk factors were identified using the Cox proportional hazards model. Results: 43 patients had sufficient data and were included in the analysis. The median age was 70 years (range 65-89), 53% were female and 47% were male. At the time of review, 21 patients were deceased (48.8%). The median survival time was 345 days. 26 patients received full induction treatment (7+3, FLAG-IDA, or Vyxeos), and 18 received conservative treatment (LDAC, azacytidine, or supportive care). The clinical wellness of the patients at diagnosis time was assessed by baseline clinical and laboratory findings. (Table 1) The Cox regression model was used to examine these variables in predicting overall survival (Figure 1). As expected, the ELN risk group was significantly correlated with OS (HR 2.94 95%CI [1.41-6.11]), along with laboratory measures of disease burden including blood blast count (HR 1.02 [1.00-1.03]), WBC, (HR 1.02 [1.01-1.03]) and ANC (HR 1.05 [1.02-1.08]). We then assessed the influence of patient fitness factors on OS. The HCT-CI score was used as an aggregate comorbidities measure. While typically used for post-SCT prognosis, we found that HCT-CI assessed at diagnosis time was a significant predictor of OS (HR 1.22[1.04-1.45]). When added to a multivariate Cox model including ELN and age, the HCT-CI independently predicted OS (p = 0.003) and improved prediction efficiency by the Akaike information criteria (115 vs 122). This corroborates earlier findings by Sorror et al. 2017, who showed incorporation of biochemical and AML-specific variables to HCT-CI yields improved prognostic value. Within the HCT-CI, the AST and cardiac disease scores were the most associated with OS (HR 1.03[1.00-1.05] and 2.27[1.09-4.76]). While clinical and laboratory assessments were readily available, functional assessments of frailty were scarce. Previously reported frailty measures such as KPS score or TUGT were not assessed at the study center. OT/PT routinely administer sit-to-stand or standing balance tests as a part of fall risk assessment. However, this data was only available for 18 patients (41.8%). Independent sit-to-stand was not detected as a significant OS predictor (HR 0.63[0.14-2.83]), possibly related to the very limited sample size. BMI was marginally predictive (HR 1.07[0.99 - 1.08]), but unlike HCT-CI it was not an independent predictor when combined with ELN. Patient age did not significantly predict OS. Conclusion: This single center retrospective study was aimed at examining the role of existing clinical or functional measures of fitness and frailty in predicting overall survival. HCT-CI and ELN were found to be the most predictive factors amongst the variables examined, suggesting that a morbidity index such as HCT-CI could provide prognostic utility. However, functional assessments of frailty were not readily completed, limiting the ability to evaluate their usefulness. A future larger prospective study focused on optimizing and incorporating routine functional assessments of frailty is needed to address this topic. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Leber: Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Otsuka: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Astellas: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; TaiHo: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AMGEN: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Jazz: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Khalaf: Novartis: Honoraria; Paladin: Honoraria; Pfizer: 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 enseignants0,002
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,004

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 ouverte0,0000,000
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 Opus0,012
Tête enseignante GPT0,299
Écart entre enseignants0,288 · 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

Citations0
Publié2021
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

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