The addition of sirolimus to tacrolimus/methotrexate GVHD prophylaxis in children with ALL: a phase 3 Children’s Oncology Group/Pediatric Blood and Marrow Transplant Consortium trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sirolimus has activity against acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) in xenograft models and efficacy in preventing acute graft-versus-host disease (aGVHD). We tested whether addition of sirolimus to GVHD prophylaxis of children with ALL would decrease aGVHD and relapse. Patients were randomized to tacrolimus/methotrexate (standard) or tacrolimus/methotrexate/sirolimus (experimental). The study met futility rules for survival after enrolling 146 of 259 patients. Rate of Grade 2-4 aGVHD was 31% vs 18% (standard vs experimental, P = .04), however, grade 3-4 aGVHD was not different (13% vs 10%, P = .28). Rates of veno-occlusive disease (VOD) and thrombotic microangiopathy (TMA) were lower in the nonsirolimus arm (9% vs 21% VOD, P = .05; 1% vs 10% TMA, P = .06). At 2 years, event free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS) were 56% vs 46%, and 65% vs 55% (standard vs experimental), respectively (P = .28 and .23). Multivariate analysis showed increased relapse risk in children with ≥0.1% minimal residual disease (MRD) pretransplant, and decreased risk in patients with grades 1-3 aGVHD (P = .04). Grades 1-3 aGVHD were associated with improved EFS (P = .02), whereas grade 4 aGVHD and extramedullary disease at diagnosis led to inferior OS. Although addition of sirolimus decreased aGVHD, survival was not improved. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov as #NCT00382109.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".