Impact Of Dedicated CML Clinic On The Outcome Of Patients With Newly Diagnosed CML: Experience Of a Single Canadian Center
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The outcome of patients with CML has improved significantly since the introduction of imatinib (O’Brien et al 2003). In the landmark IRIS trial, the rate of complete cytogenetic response (CCyR) was 69% by 12 months and 87% by 60 months and 7% of patients progressed to accelerated or blast crisis (Druker et al 2006). Multiple studies show that bcr-abl transcript level at 3 months can predict outcome and can be used to guide therapeutic strategies (Marin et al 2012). Additionally, patients achieving CCyR within 2 years on imatinib were projected to have a normal life expectancy (Gambacorti-Passerini et al 2011). Surprisingly, a survey of the CML World Registry involving over 1800 patients revealed that only 10% and 15% of patients had cytogenetic and molecular evaluation at 3 months, respectively. At our institution, we have a dedicated, multidisciplinary CML clinic with RT-PCR assay in house. We sought to determine how the outcome of our CP-CML patients, followed every 3 months and according to the ELN (European Leukemia Network) guidelines compares to clinical trial results. Methods Patients with CP-CML treated with imatinib first line between January 2004 and December 2012 were included in this retrospective chart review. Diagnosis was based on bone marrow aspirate with blast count and cytogenetic and/or FISH, and bcr/abl transcript RT-PCR using the IS method. Patients presenting in AP or BP, or those having previous lines of therapy except hydroxyurea or anagrelide were excluded. Baseline demographic, medical history, Sokal score at presentation and monitoring frequency for hematologic, cytogenetic and molecular responses were extracted. Definitions of cytogenetic and molecular responses were in accordance with the ELN guidelines. Cumulative rates of cytogenetic and molecular responses were estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method. Data for patients not achieving an adequate response were censored at the last follow up visit. Differences between groups were calculated by log rank test. The study received IRB approval at our institution. Results 55 eligible patients were identified. Median age was 53 years (17-92) and 33 (60%) were male. Distribution of Sokal score was low in 28 (50.9%), intermediate in 22 (40%) and high in 5 (9%). Median follow up duration was 53 months (range 3-106). Seven patients (12.7%) required switching to second line TKI, six for inadequate response, one for intolerance and one patient required switch to third line TKI for inadequate response. Molecular testing at 3 and 18 months post start of imatinib was performed in 48 pts (87.3%) and 53 (96.4%), respectively. At 12 months, 49 (89.1%) had cytogenetic evaluation. Estimated rates of CCyR at 6 months, 12 months, 18 months and 24 months were 46.6%, 69.2%, 78.7% and 88.2%, respectively. Estimated rates of MMR at 6 months, 12 months, 18 months and 24 months were 23.9%, 41.2%, 58.8% and 70.6%, respectively. When stratified by Sokal score, rate of CCyR at 12 months was 82.1%, 72.7% and 60% (p 0.8840) for low, intermediate and high scores, respectively. Conclusions CP-CML patients followed in a dedicated CML clinic receive more rigorous follow-up and monitoring and achieve response rates similar to that of clinical trials. Additionally, in this small cohort of patients, discontinuation rate of imatinib was substantially lower than previously reported. 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".