Phase I/II trial of clofarabine and cytarabine in children with relapsed/refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia (AAML0523): A report from the Children's Oncology Group
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The discovery of effective re-induction regimens for children with more than one relapse of acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) remains elusive. The novel nucleoside analog clofarabine exhibits modest single agent efficacy in relapsed ALL, though optimal combinations of this agent with other active chemotherapy drugs have not yet been defined. Herein we report the response rates of relapsed ALL patients treated on Children's Oncology Group study AAML0523, a Phase I/II study of the combination of clofarabine and cytarabine. PROCEDURE: AAML0523 enrolled 21 children with ALL in second or third relapse, or those refractory to re-induction therapy. The study consisted of two phases: a dose finding phase and an efficacy phase. The dose finding portion consisted of a single dose escalation/de-escalation of clofarabine for 5 days in combination with a fixed dose of cytarabine (1 g/m(2)/day for 5 days). Eight patients received clofarabine at 40 mg/m(2)/day and 13 patients at 52 mg/m(2)/day. RESULTS: Toxicities observed at all doses of clofarabine were typical of intensive chemotherapy regimens for leukemia, with infection being the most common. We did not observe significant hepatotoxicity as reported in other clofarabine combination regimens. The recommended pediatric Phase II dose of clofarabine in combination with cytarabine for the efficacy portion of AAML0523 was 52 mg/m(2). Of 21 patients with ALL, 3 (14%) achieved a complete response (CR). Based on the two-stage design definition of first-stage inactivity, the therapy was deemed ineffective. CONCLUSION: The combination of clofarabine and cytarabine in relapsed/refractory childhood ALL does not warrant further clinical investigation.
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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".