Minimally differentiated acute myeloid leukemia (FAB AML-M0) is associated with an adverse outcome in children: a report from the Children's Oncology Group, studies CCG-2891 and CCG-2961
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To assess the impact of minimally differentiated acute myeloid leukemia (AML-M0) morphology in children, we analyzed 2 sequential Children's Cancer Group AML clinical trials. We compared presenting characteristics and outcomes of 82 CCG-2891 and CCG-2961 patients with de novo, non-Down syndrome (DS) AML-M0 with those of 1620 patients with non-M0 AML, and of 10 CCG-2891 patients with DS-associated AML-M0 with those of 179 with DS-associated non-M0 AML. Morphology and cytogenetics were centrally reviewed. The non-DS AML-M0 children had a lower white blood cell (WBC) count (P = .001) than their non-M0 counterparts and a higher incidence of chromosome 5 deletions (P = .002), nonconstitutional trisomy 21 (P = .027), and hypodiploidy (P = .002). Outcome analyses considering all children with non-DS AML demonstrated no significant differences between M0 and non-M0 patients. Analyses restricted to intensive-timing CCG-2891 and CCG-2961 demonstrated comparable complete response (CR) rates (79% and 78%) between non-DS M0 and non-M0 patients. Overall survival (OS) from diagnosis (38% +/- 14% versus 51% +/- 3%; P = .160) was not significantly different between the 2 groups. OS from end of induction (45% +/- 17% versus 63% +/- 3%; P = .038), event-free survival (EFS; 23% +/- 11% versus 41% +/- 3%; P = .018), and disease-free survival (DFS; 31% +/- 14% versus 52% +/- 3%; P = .009) were inferior in the M0 group. There was no significant outcome difference between DS-associated AML-M0 and non-M0 children. This study suggests that intensively treated non-DS-associated AML-M0 children have an inferior outcome compared with children with non-M0 AML.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".