MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W7108475431 · doi:10.1182/blood-2025-3434

Prognostic impact of cognitive and other impairments in older adults with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) participating in a geriatric assessment-guided treatment selection trial

2025· article· en· W7108475431 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2025
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueCancer-related cognitive impairment studies
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésComorbidityCognitionClinical trialActivities of daily livingTransplantationProportional hazards modelRandomized controlled trialAdverse effectGeriatrics

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Background Impairments on geriatric assessment (GA) are common in older adults with AML; hence we designed a trial that used GA guided selection of chemotherapy intensity (ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT03226418). In this analysis, we hypothesized that i) specific impairments in GA are independently associated with an increased risk of death, and ii) a greater number of GA impairments increases the risk of death. The novelty of this analysis includes the unique trial design and the concept of demonstrating increased mortality risks associated with the greater burden of impairments in a prospective AML trial. Such data could demonstrate the value of multidimensional assessments, as compared to using a screening tool. Methods We enrolled older adults (≥60 years) with a new diagnosis of AML in a phase II trial and performed multidimensional GA before treatment initiation. GA included measures of physical function [Activities of Daily Living (ADL), Instrumental ADL (IADL), short physical performance battery (SPPB)], cognition [Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA)], comorbidities [Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation Comorbidity Index (HCT CI)], depression [Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9)], and nutrition [Mini Nutritional Assessment-Short Form (MNA)]. A log-rank test examined an association between mortality and impairments in GA. Cox model analyses for overall survival (OS) were performed after adjusting for co-variates such as age, WBC count, and AML risk categories. Results Baseline characteristics of the trial participants (n=73) included a median age of 69 years (range 60-87 years), 49% female, 92% white, and a median KPS of 80 (range 60-100). ELN 2017 risk categories included adverse (60%), intermediate (22%), and good-risk AML (18%). Broad eligibility criteria allowed enrolling patients representative of those treated in real-world practices: 45% of patients were ≥70 years, 57% had ≥2 comorbidities, and 27% had a history of solid malignancies. Thirty-two percent of patients resided in rural areas, and 45% were comanaged with community oncologists. Most had an HCT CI of ≥3 (55%), impaired objective physical function (SPPB) (70% had a score of ≤9), or cognitive impairment (64% had a score of ≤25 on MOCA). ADL and IADL were impaired in 29% and 22%, respectively. Depression screen (PHQ-9 score of ≥10) and nutritional screen (MNA score of ≤11) were abnormal in 33% and 56%. Impairments were also common in patients with KPS score of 80-100. Based on the protocol, eight patients (11%) received intensive chemotherapy; others received low-intensity chemotherapy: azacitidine or decitabine alone (prior to approval of venetoclax) or in combination with venetoclax. The median survival for all patients was 355 days. In log-rank testing, cognitive impairment (MOCA score of ≤25 vs. 26-30) (p=0.049) was associated with poorer OS whereas impairments in ADL (≤5 vs. 6 out of 6) (p=0.050), and SPPB (≤9 vs. 10-12) (p=0.062) showed a trend towards an association with worse OS. Younger patients (60-69 years) were more likely to score well on SPPB (p=0.030) but their OS was not different from those 70 years and older (p=0.79). The number of impairments in GA domains included 0-1 (16.4%), 2-3 (38.4%) and 4-7 (45.2%). Patients with 0-1 vs. 2-3 GA impairments did not have any differences in OS, hence were merged into one group. In adjusted cox model, patients without vs. with cognitive impairment (HR 0.38, 95% CI 0.18-0.81, p=0.012) had lower risk of mortality, and independence in ADLs showed a trend towards lower mortality (HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.29-1.01, p=0.055). Patients with fewer GA impairments (0-3 vs. 4 or more) had lower risk of mortality (HR 0.42, 95% CI 0.23-0.77, p=0.0049). Conclusion Older adults with newly diagnosed AML and normal cognitive function have lower risk of mortality. Patients with 0-3 vs. 4 or more impairments in GA domains have lower risk of mortality. Multidimensional assessments including cognitive testing at AML diagnosis can be useful for prognostication. Supportive care interventions to address geriatric impairments should be tested as a strategy to improve OS.

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: Essai non randomisé · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,003
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,016

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
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0000,000
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 Opus0,014
Tête enseignante GPT0,336
Écart entre enseignants0,322 · 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 revueBloodMême sujetCancer-related cognitive impairment studiesTravaux en français237 207