A Multicenter Randomized Trial Comparing Response-Adapted (RA), Non-Cross-Resistant Induction and Consolidation with Idarubicin/Cytarabine (IDAC) Followed by Mitoxantrone/Etoposide (NOVE) Compared with Consolidation with High Dose Cytarabine (HDAC) in Adult Patients with AML. A Study by the Canadian Leukemia Studies Group (CLSG).
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: A CLSG pilot rx’d 140 pts.with Response Adapted Rx(RA) with Idarubicin 12 mg/m2 d1-3 & Ara-C 200 mg/m2 d1-7(IDAC);followed by IDAC II, then Mitoxantrone10 mg/m2&VP-16 100 mg/m2d1-5(NOVE), if in CR after IDAC, & NOVE x2 if they had persistent blasts @ d14 or @ recovery. CR rate was 74% in pts age15–80.DFS and OS were favourable @ 20 mos & 47 mos in pts ≤ 60. A CALGB study demonstrated the advantage of consolidation with high dose Ara-C(HDAC).We chose to compare HDAC with RA. Methods: All pts with AML, age15–80, with a performance of 0–2,were included except those with a hx of MDS>3 mos,bili>85 mmol/l, creatinine>220 mmol/l, hx of chemoRx or radiation Rx for another malignancy,CML, ejection fraction<40%,or HIV+. Pts were randomized in CR to obtain consolidation Rx with: either IDAC followed by NOVE - Arm A, or 2 cycles of HDAC as given by the CALGB-Arm B, and if they required NOVE to obtain CR-2 cycles of HDAC-Arm C, or 2 cycles of NOVE - Arm D. HDAC was given at 3 g/m2 if pts were ≤ 60 and 1 g/m2 if >60. Dosage adjustments were made to VP-16 according to ↑ AST, to Idarubicin according to↑ bilirubin, and to HDAC according to ↑ ALP and/or ↑ creatinine. Pts with M3 were to be treated at least 45 days with ATRA. Pts were stratified according to age and # of inductions required to achieve CR and were followed until death, relapse, or BMT. Pts were followed for quality of life using both the SF-36 and the FLIC surveys which pts completed at baseline,1,4 and 12 mos post discharge from consolidation. Data went through annual analyses by an independent data monitoring committee comprised of a non-blinded statistician, a hematologist, and a an oncologist not participating in the study who were blinded to treatment allocation. Their analysis was done using group sequential design with early stopping boundaries. Results: The comparison was made between the RA approach (Arms A+D) vs. consolidation with HDAC (Arms B+C). Analysis was done on an intent-to-treat basis. 503 patients were recruited into the study from 5/96 until 12/01, of whom 461 were assessable. 201 age ≤ 60 and 95 age > 60 were randomized with a median time since randomization of 65.7 mos.Median DFS in RA pts > 60 was 20 mos vs. 13.3 mos in the HDAC arm (p=.15). The overall DFS hazard ratio was 0.72 (0.47, 1.13), p=0.153. For those RA pts > 60 and disease free at 6 mos, the median DFS was 27.3 mos vs. 10.2 mos in the HDAC arm with the hazard ratio of 0.57 (0.33, 1.02), p=0.056. Median DFS in pts ≤ 60 was 32 mos in pts randomized to RA and was 22.8 mos in the HDAC arm. Median OS in pts ≤ 60 has not yet been reached in pts randomized to RA and was 60.2 mos in the HDAC arm. In the RA pts > 60 the median OS was 21.1 mos vs. 19 mos in the HDAC arm. Notably, there is a trend in 117 pts ≤ 60 undergoing BMT to have lower mortality if treated with RA 21 (41.2%), rather than with HDAC 37 (56.1%), p=0.11. Conclusion: Although this study was not sufficiently powered to detect a statistically significant difference at the 0.05 level it suggests that RA therapy is advantageous over HDAC consolidation therapy, particularly for pts > 60 and for those who may get a BMT.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".