MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4417016030 · doi:10.1182/blood-2025-1644

Post-transplant maintenance with sorafenib is safe and effective in pediatric patients with har FLT3/ITD AML: A report from the Children's oncology group protocol AAML1031

2025· article· en· W4417016030 sur OpenAlexaff
Caitlin W. Elgarten, Todd A. Alonzo, Robert B. Gerbing, John Choi, Brian T. Fisher, Betsy Hirsch, Samir B. Kahwash, John E. Levine, Lisa Eidenschink Brodersen, Michael R. Loken, Susana C. Raimondi, Katherine Tarlock, Andrew Wood, Lillian Sung, Todd M. Cooper, Alan S. Gamis, Soheil Meshinchi, Richard Aplenc, Jessica A. Pollard

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2025
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueAcute Myeloid Leukemia Research
Établissements canadiensHospital for Sick Children
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésSorafenibCohortTolerabilityChemotherapyHematopoietic stem cell transplantationChemotherapy regimenTransplantationInduction chemotherapy

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction Patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) with an internal tandem duplication mutation of FLT3 (FLT3/ITD) have a high risk of relapse and cure with chemotherapy alone is rare. FLT3 tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) target the oncogenic FLT3 receptor to improve outcomes in this poor prognosis subset. COG AAML1031 studied the feasibility and efficacy of adding sorafenib to multi-agent chemotherapy in pediatric patients with FLT3/ITD AML and demonstrated improved disease-free survival compared to a similar a cohort of similar FLT3/ITD+ patients who did not receive TKI. The objective of this analysis was to examine the tolerability and efficacy of sorafenib, specifically when added as maintenance after hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT). Methods On COG AAML1031, pediatric patients with FLT3/ITD AML (high allelic ratio (HAR) >0.4) were eligible to receive sorafenib plus conventional chemotherapy with each treatment course followed by allogeneic HCT. After HCT, patients could reinitiate sorafenib (starting at 100 mg/m2 with predefined escalation/de-escalation) between day +40-100 and receive for one year from restart. Criteria to restart included adequate hematopoietic recovery without evidence of relapse, no acute GVHD and adequate cardiovascular function (shortening fraction > 28%, no severe hypertension). Patients who received at least one dose of sorafenib after HCT were considered exposed. A control cohort was compiled of (1) patients from AAML0531 arm B who received identical chemotherapy, without sorafenib (n=13), (2) patients on AAML1031 with HAR FLT3/ITD who did not receive any sorafenib (n=6), and (3) patients on AAML1031 who only received pre-HCT sorafenib but did not restart after (n=25). All control patients had received allogeneic HCT on study in first remission. Cumulative incidence of relapse (CIR) after HCT was the primary outcome measure. Post-HCT sorafenib was treated as a time-dependent exposure and non-relapse mortality was a competing event. Results The analysis included 74 patients, 30 with post-HCT sorafenib exposure (post-HCT TKI) and 44 control patients (no post-HCT TKI); of the controls, 25 received pre-HCT sorafenib (pre-HCT TKI only) and 19 never received sorafenib (no TKI). Post-HCT TKI patients were more likely to be non-Hispanic white (83% versus 62%, p=0.012), but otherwise demographic, disease and transplant characteristics, as well as follow up time from HCT, were similar between the post-HCT TKI and control groups. Compared to subjects with pre-HCT TKI only, those who received post-HCT TKI were more likely to have received 3 full courses (87% versus 72%, p = 0.09). Median start day of TKI was 74 (range 42-110); one patient relapsed before day 40. The 5-year CIR for those with post-HCT TKI was 21% (95%CI 8-38%) and for controls was 34% (95%CI 21-48%); HR 0.70, p = 0.416. Median time to relapse was longer in patients who received maintenance (4 versus 15 months). 5-year overall survival (OS) also favored receipt of sorafenib, 90% (95%CI 71%-97%) versus 57% (95%CI 41-70%), OS log-rank p value 0.008. In a sensitivity analysis comparing the post-HCT TKI cohort to the cohort that received pre-HCT TKI only, CIR results were similar (HR = 0.67, p = 0.42) as were OS results (log rank p value .001, 5y OS 90% versus 44%). Sorafenib was well tolerated after HCT; 20/30 (66%) patients were able to complete the full year of treatment, although dose reductions compared to initial dose were common (30%, 24%, 15% in cycles 1-3, respectively). Only 1/3 of subjects experienced an AE of any grade in each cycle, none greater that grade 3, except for one grade 4 neutropenia in cycle 2. The most common grade 3 AE was ALT elevation (13%, cycle 1). The cumulative incidence of acute or chronic graft versus host disease (GVHD) was similar among patients who did and did not receive sorafenib, HR = 0.83 (95%CI 0.38-1.78, p=0.63). Conclusions This prospective study of post-HCT sorafenib maintenance therapy in de novo HAR FLT3/ITD+ pediatric AML demonstrated a clinically, but not statistically significant, reduction in relapse risk and an acceptable side effect profile. Patients who received sorafenib also have substantially improved OS but this may be in part due to a favorable clinical status among patients who restart sorafenib. Further work is needed to understand whether its benefit is limited to specific disease subsets and/or those with pre HCT MRD and to clarify the optimal duration of dosing.

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)0,002
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: Essai non randomisé · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,002
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,010

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0010,000
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0020,000

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 Opus0,003
Tête enseignante GPT0,249
Écart entre enseignants0,246 · 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'étudeEssai non randomisé
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→