MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4417013071 · doi:10.1182/blood-2025-5247

Validation of the FL/IL6 score, a new dynamic cytokine-based risk-model in adults with acute myeloid leukemia, a prospective multicentre filo study.

2025· article· en· W4417013071 sur OpenAlexaff
Pierre Péterlin, Joëlle Gaschet, Sarah Bertoli, Marc Bernard, Martin Carré, Pierre Yves Dumas, Chama Mokeddem, Amine Belhabri, Anne Banos, Caroline Bonmati, Emmanuelle Tavernier, Gaëlle Guillerm, Sarah Bonnet, Justine Decroocq, Alain Saad, Mario Ojeda‐Uribe, Romain Guièze, Raja Prince-Eladnani, Alice Garnier, Arnaud Pigneux, Christian Récher, Marie‐Anne Vibet, Patrice Chevallier

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2025
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueAcute Myeloid Leukemia Research
Établissements canadiensHotel Dieu Hospital
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMyeloid leukemiaProspective cohort studyCohortOverall survivalCohort studySurvival analysisProportional hazards model

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Background: In a recent monocentric study in adults with acute myeloid leukemia (AML), it was shown that combining the kinetic profile of plasma level concentrations of Fms-like Tyrosine Kinase 3 Ligand (FL) with that of Interleukine-6 (IL6) level evaluated at day (D) 22 during a frontline intensive induction was strongly predictive of response and overall survival (OS). Indeed, three FL kinetic profiles can be delineated during induction (FL risk-model): i) sustained increase of FL between D 1 and D22 (FLI group), ii) increase from D1 to D15, then decrease at D22 (FLD group) and iii) stagnation of low levels (FLL group). With longer follow-up, it was observed that FLI and FLD groups shared similar outcomes while the FLL group kept a very bad prognostic. Thereafter, D22 IL6 level allowed to predict survival within the combined FLI/FLD sub-group. Thus, a new FL/IL6 risk-model was proposed, distinguishing 3 sub-groups: FLI/FLD with IL-6 <15.5 pg/mL (favorable, F), FLI/FLD with IL-6 ≥ 15.5 pg/mL (intermediate, I) and FLL (adverse, A). To confirm these results, we have conducted a large prospective multicentre study. Preliminary results, focusing on the FL risk-model impact, were presented at the ASH 2023 meeting (Blood (2023) 142: 975). We now report on the impact of the FL/IL6 score in the same cohort of AML patients (pts) with a longer follow-up. Methods: The non-interventional multicentric prospective FLAMVAL study (clinicaltrials.gov: NCT04641910) was conducted on behalf of the French Innovative Leukemia Organization (FILO) and was funded by Astellas. The main objective was to validate the prognostic impact on 2y OS of the new FL/IL6 risk-model. All adults (≥ 18 years old, yo) with a non-previously treated non-M3 AML and receiving a standard intensive induction chemotherapy were eligible. FL and IL6 plasma levels were evaluated at D1, D8, D15 and D22 using a cytokine multiplex assay from Milliplex (MILLIPLEX®). The number of pts to be included was estimated at 201. All pts gave informed consent. Results: Between June 2021 and August 2022, 226 pts from 16 FILO centres were included and 203 with full available dosages were eventually considered for analyses. Median age was 59 yo [IQR:48-67], 52% were men, median white blood count (WBC) was 4.15 G/L [IQR: 2-11.5]. Of the 48 pts with FLT3 mutations (FLT3-ITD n=40, FLT3-TKD n=7, both n=1), 41 received a FLT3 inhibitor during induction. Also 106 pts (52%) received allo-HSCT. According to ELN-2017 risk-classification, 55 (27%), 87 (43%) and 61 (30%) pts had F-, I- and A-risk, respectively. Considering the whole cohort, the complete remission (CR)/CR with incomplete hematologic recovery (CRi) rate (according to ELN-2017 risk-classification) was 76%, 2y OS and EFS were 70% (95%CI: 63; 73) and 45% (95%CI: 38-52), respectively. Median OS was not reached, median EFS was 24 months (95%CI: 21; 24). According to the new FL/IL6 risk-model, 44 (22%), 81 (40%) and 74 (36%) pts had F-, I- and A-risk, respectively, while 4 pts (2%) could not be classified. The CR/CRi rates were F: 89%, I: 89% and A: 66%, p<0.001. 2-y OS were F: 84% (70-93), I: 69% (58-79) and A: 61%, p=0.04. 2y EFS were F: 55% (39-70), I: 52% (47-64) and A: 30% (20-42), p=0.003. Multivariate analyses (MA) were performed for response, OS and LFS, including the following factors: FL/IL6 risk-model, ELN-2017 risk-classification, age (< vs ≥ 60 yo), WBC (< vs ≥ 20 G/L), sex and FLT3 status. FL/IL6 F-risk (vs A-risk, HR: 0.32; 95%CI: 0.18-0.46, p<0.001) and ELN2017 F-risk (vs I-risk, HR: 0.23; 95%CI: 0.09-0.36, p=0.001; and vs A-risk, HR: 0.25; 95%CI: 0.10-0.39, p=0.001) were significantly associated with better CR/CRi rate after induction. Both FL/IL6 I-risk (vs F-risk, HR: 2.82, 95%CI: 1.20-6.63, p=0.01) and A-risk (vs F-risk, HR: 2.99; 95%CI: 1.30-6.88, p=0.01) as well as ELN-2017 I-risk (vs F-risk, HR: 3.85; 95%CI: 1.46-10.19, p=0.007) and A-risk (vs F-risk, HR: 8.31; 95%CI: 3.15-21.88, p<0.001) were significantly associated with lower OS. Also, FL/IL6 A-risk (vs F-risk, HR: 2.35, 95%CI: 1.37-4.02, p=0.002) and ELN-2017 I-risk (vs F-risk, HR: 2.19; 95%CI: 1.25-3.85, p=0.006) and A-risk (vs F-risk, HR: 2.65; 95%CI: 1.51-4.63, p=0.001) were significantly associated with lower EFS. Age, WBC, sex, and FLT3 status have no impact on response, OS and EFS. Conclusion: The new FL/IL6 cytokine-based risk-model predicts response and survivals in intensively treated adult AML pts, deserving further investigation in AML studies.

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)0,003
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,004
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 enseignants0,003
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,017

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0030,004
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
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 Opus0,008
Tête enseignante GPT0,265
Écart entre enseignants0,258 · 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
Publié2025
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

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