Blinatumomab mitigates the impact of traditional adverse prognosticators among children with standard risk b-acute lymphoblastic leukemia: Updated results of the Children's oncology group (COG) Trial AALL1731
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract COG study AALL1731 established that adding two cycles of the bispecific T-cell engager blinatumomab to risk-adapted chemotherapy (chemo) significantly improved 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) of children with National Cancer Institute (NCI) standard risk (SR) B-acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) at average or higher risk of relapse (Gupta et al, NEJM 2025). Longer-term follow-up is critical to ensure the benefit persists. Further work is also needed to determine prognostic features in patients (pts) whose therapy now includes blinatumomab. AALL1731 enrolled newly diagnosed NCI SR [age 1-<10 years with initial white blood cell count <50,000/µL] B-ALL pts, without BCR::ABL1 fusion, testicular or central nervous system (CNS)3 disease. After 3-drug induction, pts were risk stratified based on leukemia genetics, CNS status, day 8 blood flow cytometry-defined minimal residual disease (fcMRD), and end of induction (EOI) bone marrow (BM) fcMRD and EOI clonoSEQ assessment. Pts at average risk of relapse (SR-Avg) with detectable or indeterminate EOI BM ClonoSEQ MRD were randomized to standard chemo (Arm A) or chemo plus 2 cycles of blinatumomab (Arm B). Pts at high risk of relapse (SR-High) with end of consolidation (EOC) BM mpFC MRD <0.1% were randomized to higher intensity chemo (Arm C) or chemo plus 2 cycles of blinatumomab (Arm D). Interim analyses (June 2024) showed that addition of blinatumomab was associated with improved DFS; enrollment was terminated and Arm A/C pts not yet in Maintenance offered crossover and blinatumomab. Using current data to 6/25, we compared DFS between Arms A/C and B/D, censoring pre-Maintenance pts when crossover was offered. We also determined the effect of blinatumomab on the impact of traditional prognosticators by comparing the associated risk within Arm A/C pts vs within Arm B/D pts. Median follow-up was 3.5 years (IQR=2.5-4.3). Of 1,444 randomized pts, 133 were censored. In intent-to-treat analyses, 4-year DFS (± standard error) was 94.8±1.5% for pts randomized to blinatumomab arms (B/D) vs 86.9±2.2% control arms (A/C). Adding blinatumomab significantly improved DFS [Hazard Ratio (HR) 0.41, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.27-0.62, 1-sided p<0.0001]. The 4-year cumulative incidence of relapse (CIR) for those randomized to blinatumomab vs control arms was 4.4±0.9% vs 12.6±1.5% (p<0.0001). While BM involved relapses were significantly reduced (4-year CIR 3.1±0.8% vs. 9.4±1.3%, p<0.0001), isolated CNS relapses were unchanged (1.4±0.5% vs 2.2±0.6%, p=0.41). In Arms A/C (control) traditional variables used in COG retained adverse prognostic significance, in contrast to Arms B/D (blinatumomab). For example, in control arms, Hispanic ethnicity was associated with a two-fold increase in risk (HR 2.1, 95CI 1.3-3.4; p=0.004) while in blinatumomab arms the HR for Hispanic ethnicity was 1.3 (95CI 0.6-2.7; p=0.51). In control arm pts, EOI fcMRD≥0.01% had a 4-year DFS of 82.3±2.7% vs 89.7±1.7% for EOI fcMRD<0.01% (p=0.008). In blinatumomab arm pts however, EOI fcMRD≥0.01% 4-year DFS was 92.8±1.9% vs. 95.9±1.1% for MRD <0.01% (p=0.08). Notably, blinatumomab arm pts with EOI fcMRD ≥0.01% had superior outcomes to control arm pts with EOI fcMRD <0.01%. Dramatic impact was seen in pts with EOC BM fcMRD 0.01%-<0.1% vs EOI MRD ≥0.01% but EOC fcMRD <0.01% (control:HR 5.9, 95CI 2.5-14.0; p<0.0001; blinatumomab:HR 2.6, 95CI 0.6-11.8; p=0.21). Indeed, EOC MRD 0.01%-<0.1% pts on Arm C experienced 4-year DFS of 30.8±16.8% (N=16) vs 81.8±11.6% (N=13) on Arm D. CNS2 pts, who in previous COG trials had inferior outcomes, had 4-year DFS of 96.8±2.3% on blinatumomab arms. Unfavorable genetics [iAMP21, KMT2A rearrangement, t(17;19), hypodiploidy] retained adverse impact (Arm C: HR 3.5 vs favorable, 95CI 1.6-7.6; p=0.002; Arm D: HR 4.1, 95CI 1.1-15.2; p=0.04). However, addition of blinatumomab was still associated with improved outcomes in pts with unfavorable genetics (4-year DFS Arm C 77.1±5.9% vs Arm D 91.7±3.6%).The benefit associated with adding blinatumomab to the treatment of NCI SR B-ALL is maintained with further follow-up. While some adverse prognosticators retain significance in the context of blinatumomab-containing backbones, the addition of blinatumomab is of benefit for all examined subgroups, with most prognosticators losing significance. These results confirm this new standard therapy and have important implications for which subgroups could be considered for a reduction in traditional chemo in the future.
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».