Clofarabine versus fludarabine‐based reduced‐intensity conditioning regimen prior to allogeneic transplantation in adults with AML/MDS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We have retrospectively compared survivals between acute myeloid leukemia (AML)/myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) patients who received either a clofarabine/busulfan (CloB2A2) or a fludarabine/busulfan (FB2A2) RIC regimen for allogeneic stem cell transplantation. Between 2009 and 2014, 355 allotransplanted cases were identified from the SFGM-TC registry as having received either the FB2A2 (n = 316, 56% males, median age: 59.2 years, AML 78.5%, first complete remission [CR1] 72%, median follow-up: 20 months) or the CloB2A2 (n = 39, 62% males, median age: 60.8 years, AML 62%, CR1 69%, median follow-up: 22.4 months) RIC regimen. In multivariate analysis, FB2A2 was associated with significant lower overall survival (OS, HR: 2.14; 95%CI: 1.05-4.35, P = 0.04) and higher relapse incidence (RI, HR: 2.17; 95%CI: 1.02-4.61, P = 0.04) and a trend for lower leukemia-free survival (LFS, HR: 1.75; 95%CI: 0.94-3.26, P = 0.08). These results were confirmed using a propensity score-matching strategy. However, when considering AML and MDS patients separately, the benefit of the CLOB2A2 regimen was restricted to AML patients (2-year OS FB2A2: 38% [14.5-61.6] vs. CloB2A2: 79.2% [62.9-95.4], P = 0.01; 2-year LFS FB2A2: 38% [16-59.9] vs. CloB2A2: 70.8% [52.6-89], P = 0.03). The better survivals were due to the lower risk of relapse in this CloB2A2 AML subgroup (2-year RI FB2A2: 41.2% [19-62.4] vs. CloB2A2: 16.7% [5-34.2], P = 0.05). This retrospective comparison suggests that the CloB2A2 RIC regimen can likely provide longer survival than that awarded by a FB2A2 RIC regimen and may become a new standard of care RIC regimen for allotransplanted AML patients. A prospective phase 3 randomized study is warranted.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".