Outcome After First Relapse Or Refractory Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia In Children From 1996 To 2011 – Comparison Of Two Different Treatment Strategies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction Newly diagnosed acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) has achieved a cure rate of 80-85% in developed countries. Nevertheless, up to 20% of patients still relapse or have a refractory disease. Approximately 50% of these patients are long term survivors. In our institution, the strategy for relapsed patients had changed from hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) after reinduction to all patients to a more tailored approach, offering HSCT to patients at high risk of relapse (e.g. those relapsing early after or during treatment) or for those with late marrow relapse with a related donor after a re-induction treatment. The aims of this study was to analyse the results of treatment for children with ALL in first relapse or refractory disease and to compare the outcome based on the strategy of treatment: re-induction followed by HSCT for all patients versus re-induction followed by HSCT or chemotherapy according the risk of relapse. Patients and Methods This retrospective study analysed treatment and outcome of children (up to 18 years-old) with a first relapse or refractory ALL treated in a single institution from 1996 until 2011. All patients were previously treated according to DFCI protocol 95, 00 or 05. Two treatment strategies have been used for patients refractory or with marrow relapse. Until 2007, they were all treated with a re-induction treatment (usually the same protocol used as first-line induction) followed by an allogeneic HSCT with a related or unrelated donor once complete remission was attained. Starting from 2007, patients with a late marrow relapse were treated with chemotherapy alone (or with HSCT if an HLA sibling donor was available), and patients refractory or with an early relapse received at least 3 cycles of chemotherapy before HSCT (with a related or unrelated donor), to reduce pre-transplant residual disease. Results 64 patients had been diagnosed with a first relapse (n=55) or refractory (n=11) ALL whereas 453 patients were diagnosed with ALL during this fifteen years period. At first diagnosis, median WBC was 20 x109/L, 54 (84.5%) patients were B-ALL, 21 (33%) had a positive CNS and 26 (40.5%) had a favourable or a normal karyotype. According to risk stratification at first diagnosis, 26 (40.5%), 30 (47%) and 8 (12.5%) patients were classified as standard, high- and very high risk, respectively. Median ages at relapse diagnosis were 5.9 (range 1.3-17.1) for relapsed and 8.4 (range 1.4-18.4) years for refractory patients. At relapse, median WBC was 6 x109/L and 39 (61%), 14 (22%) and 11 (17%) presented with an isolated marrow, combined and extramedullary (EM) relapse, respectively. Median interval between diagnosis and relapse was 32.5 (range 0.6-135.1) months and 11 (17 %) were classified as refractory, 25 (39%) were classified as early relapse (<36 months from diagnosis to relapse) and 28 (44%) as late relapse (≥ 36 months from diagnosis to relapse). Until 2007, 29 (85 %) patients with marrow relapse received an allogeneic HSCT. After 2007, 14 (70%) received an allo-HSCT and 6 (30%) were treated with chemotherapy after induction. Estimated 3-year event-free survival (EFS) for the whole population was 53% (28% for early and 84% for late relapse [p>0.001]). Before and after 2007, estimated 3-year EFS was respectively 46% and 65% (p=0.3). Conclusion Introduction of a more intensive re-induction therapy and the treatment of the late relapse with chemotherapy alone had permitted to improve the survival of children with relapse/refractory leukemia, probably due to a better control of minimal residual disease (MRD). MRD-guided reinduction therapy is currently the standard of care for these patients and new therapeutics approaches are still needed for patients with early relapse. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".