Predictors of response to reinduction chemotherapy for patients with acute myeloid leukemia who do not achieve complete remission with frontline induction chemotherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Eighty-one patients with acute myeloid leukemia who had persistent leukemia following standard induction therapy with cytarabine plus daunorubicin (7+3 regimen) underwent reinduction therapy with a combination of mitoxantrone, etoposide, and high-dose cytarabine (HiDAC). Patients achieving complete remission (CR) then received consolidation therapy with HiDAC plus mitoxantrone. Patients with matched sibling donors were referred for allogeneic bone marrow transplantation (BMT) in CR-1. The overall response rate to reinduction was 53%. The major adverse predictors of CR on multivariate analysis were poor risk cytogenetics, a higher % bone marrow blasts prior to reinduction therapy and increased age. The median relapse-free survival (RFS) was 9 months and the estimated 2-year RFS was 30%. No significant predictors of RFS or overall survival (OS) were found among the patients achieving CR. Patients undergoing allogeneic BMT in CR-1 after double induction had a 50% 2-year OS. Patients relapsing after achieving CR with double induction had a poor outcome with a 4% 1-year OS. The results indicate that patients with poor risk cytogenetics or marrow blast percentage >or= 60% following 7+3 induction have a low probability of achieving CR with reinduction and should be considered for novel approaches to improve CR rates. Patients achieving CR are at high risk of relapse and should be considered for allogeneic BMT or novel strategies to attempt to reduce relapse rates.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".