A Randomized Trial of Sirolimus-Based Graft Versus Host Disease (GVHD) Prophylaxis After Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation (HSCT) in Selected Patients with CR1 and CR2 ALL: Results From Children's Oncology Group Study ASCT0431
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Abstract 837 Based upon demonstrated activity of mTOR inhibitors in preclinical models of ALL and a promising pilot study, we hypothesized that the use of sirolimus added to a standard GVHD prophylaxis regimen would decrease relapse and improve survival after HSCT for children with high-risk CR1 and CR2 ALL. The COG performed a randomized phase III trial comparing tacrolimus/methotrexate (tac/mtx) with tac/mtx plus sirolimus. Sirolimus was initiated on day 0 of transplant and continued at therapeutic levels for 6 months. All patients received a preparative regimen consisting of fractionated TBI (1200–1320 cGy), and cyclophosphamide (60mg/kg × 2) +/− thiotepa (5mg/kg × 2) or VP-16 (1500mg/m2). Patients with primary induction failure who attained CR, hypodipoid ALL (<44 chromosomes), and Ph+ ALL were eligible for HCT in CR1 (intermediate risk); eligible CR2 patients included B-lineage with early bone marrow (BM) relapse (<36m from diagnosis) or T-lineage with BM relapse at any time (high risk, HR) and B-lineage with late BM relapse or isolated extramedullary relapse occurring <18m from diagnosis (intermediate risk, IR). HLA-matched sibling donors, 7–8/8 HLA matched related or unrelated donors, and 4–6/6 HLA matched cord blood stem cell sources were allowed. Randomization was stratified by donor type and relapse risk group. Events included relapse and treatment related mortality (TRM); the study was designed to enroll 259 patients to detect a two-year event free survival difference of 16% with 80% power. Results: A total of 146 patients enrolled, with 142 providing data to the analysis. As of July 1, 2011, there were 27 events in the 69 control arm patients and 31 events in the 73 experimental arm patients. The study was closed on May 10, 2011 when a stopping rule for futility of the primary endpoint (improved EFS) was met. The rates of grade III–IV acute GVHD, relapse, and TRM were 22%, 28% and 12% in control and 15%, 29%, and 14% in experimental arm patients (p=NS). Rates of CMV reactivation, venoocclusive Disease (VOD), and transplant associated microangiopathy (TAM) were 19%, 9%, and 1% in control arm patients and 12%, 17%, and 8% in experimental arm patients (p=0.26, 0.13, 0.10, respectively). Multistate modeling results indicate that the treatment group experienced less grade 2 to 4 aGVHD, but relapse rates in aGVHD patients were a quarter of those in non-aGVHD patients (p=<.001) while TRM rates were 1.5 times that of patients with no or grade I aGVHD (p=NS, see table). Survival after sibling donor transplantation was identical to URD transplantation. There was a trend toward increased risk of relapse in recipients of cord blood (p=0.14); further analysis of HLA type, pre-HSCT minimal residual disease (MRD), and patient risk is underway to clarify this finding.NaGVHD (III–IV)RelapseTRM1 year EFSaGVHD (II–IV) not present9333 (31%)10 (11%).45a (.32–.61)aGVHD (II–IV) present497 (15%)8 (16%).79a (.60–.89)P value<0.0010.38Matched Sib7513 (17%)20 (27%)5 (7%).58 (.42–.71)URD/Other RD387 (18%)7 (18%)7 (18%).54 (.32–.71)Cord296 (21%)13 (45%)6 (21%).33 (.16–.51)P value0.720.140.30 Conclusions: The addition of sirolimus to tac/mtx resulted in a trend toward higher rates of non-fatal TAM and VOD, but identical rates of severe VOD and TRM. There was a lower rate of grade II–IV aGVHD in the experimental arm, but no decrease in relapse. For the combined cohort, grade II–IV acute GVHD was associated with significantly less relapse and improved survival, suggesting that GVL is important in decreasing relapse after HSCT for pediatric ALL. The cytotoxic effect of sirolimus against ALL was insufficient to decrease relapse when given to very high risk ALL patients after HSCT as part of GVHD prophylaxis, possibly because of the offsetting effect of decreasing GVL. Disclosures: Off Label Use: The trial used sirolimus for graft vs. host disease prophylaxis in children. Sirolimus is approved for kidney transplantation in children. Borowitz:BD Biosciences: Research Funding. Grupp:Children's Hospital of Philadelphia: Patents & Royalties.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".