<i>Erwinia</i> asparaginase after allergy to <i>E. coli</i> asparaginase in children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Escherichia coli asparaginase is an important component of treatment for childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL); however, hypersensitivity develops in up to 30% of patients. We assessed the nadir enzyme activity and tolerability of Erwinia asparaginase, an alternative preparation, in E. coli asparaginase-allergic patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between 2000 and 2002, 215 children with newly diagnosed ALL were enrolled on Dana-Farber Cancer Institute ALL Consortium Protocol 00-01 and were to receive 30 weekly doses of intramuscular E. coli asparaginase. If E. coli asparaginase allergy developed, patients were switched to twice-weekly intramuscular Erwinia asparaginase (25,000 IU/m(2)). Nadir serum asparaginase activity (NSAA) was measured every 3 weeks. RESULTS: Forty-two patients (20%) developed E. coli asparaginase allergy and switched to Erwinia. Of 38 patients with evaluable samples, 34 (89%) Erwinia-treated patients had at least one therapeutic NSAA (> or =0.1 IU/ml). The median NSAA was 0.247 IU/ml 3 days and 0.077 IU/ml 4 days after an Erwinia dose. Associated toxicities included allergy in 14 (33%) and pancreatitis in 3 patients (7%). At a median follow-up of 5.4 years, event-free survival (+/-standard error) of the 42 patients who switched to Erwinia was 86 +/- 5% compared with 81 +/- 3% for the 170 patients without E. coli asparaginase allergy (P = 0.55). CONCLUSIONS: Twice-weekly Erwinia asparaginase was well tolerated and achieved a therapeutically effective NSAA in most E. coli asparaginase-allergic patients. Development of E. coli allergy and subsequent treatment with twice-weekly Erwinia did not adversely impact event-free survival. Erwinia asparaginase should be considered for E. coli asparaginase-allergic patients.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".