MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Presenting Features Predictive of Long-Term Stability in Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia.

2005· article· en· W2557309119 on OpenAlexaff
Kortney L. Hillier, Sarah S. Fung, Linda M. Vickars, Chantal S. Leger, Paul F. Galbraith, Charles Li, Heather A. Leitch

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Research
Canadian institutionsSt. Paul's HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChronic lymphocytic leukemiaMedicineInternal medicineGastroenterologyGroup BGroup AB cellCD38Stage (stratigraphy)LeukemiaImmunologyAntibodyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Prognostic factors to predict an aggressive clinical course in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) such as CD38, ZAP-70 and IgH mutation status have been well described, however, readily available presenting features predictive of long-term stability are less well defined. We performed a retrospective analysis of 335 consecutive patients with CLL seen at St. Paul’s Hospital from January 1969 to July 2005. Patients were identified from the practice data-base and clinical and pathological data abstracted by chart review. Long-term stability was defined as no requirement for treatment for at least 6 years (n=66, group A). Characteristics of group A were compared to all other pts (group B, n=269), and, to avoid follow-up bias, to pts followed for ≥6 y who required treatment (group C, n=62). 65 pts in group A were B-cell in phenotype and 1 was T-cell; group B 268 pts B-cell, 1 T-cell; group C all 62 B-cell. Median age at diagnosis for groups A, B and C were 59.5 (range 33–80) y; 68 (30–94) y; and 60 (30–82) y, respectively (p<0.0001 for A vs. B and p<0.42 for A vs. C). Male pts comprised 52%, 54.3% and 53% of groups A, B and C respectively (p<0.85). Rai stages were: stage 0, 1, 2, 3, and 4; 111, 48, 47, 3 and 6 respectively. ECOG Performance Status was 0 in 307 pts and was not analyzed further. Lymphocyte count at diagnosis (LCD) for groups A, B and C were 9 (4–50 X 109/L), 10 (3–394) and 12 (3–155; p<0.0001 for A vs. B and p< 0.01 for A vs. C); in group A, 25 (38%) of pts had a LCD ≤10, as did 81 (30%) in group B and 10 (16%) in group C. In groups A, B and C, 9 (13.6%), 21 (11.5%), and 7 (11.3%) pts, respectively, had a lymphocyte doubling time (LDT) ≤12mo (to an absolute value ≥50X109/L; p<0.65). Immunophenotyping was available in 202 pts; 173 were CD5+ CD19+, 2 were CD5- and 29 CD19-. Analysis for CD38 was available in 50 pts; in groups A, B and C, 5 of 36 (14.3%), 2 of 14 (16.7%) and 0 of 7, respectively, were CD38+ (defined as ≥30% of cells; p<0.84). Median follow-up for groups A, B and C was 110.5 (76–369) mo, 43 (0–309) mo, and 134.5 (72–309 mo; p<0.0001 for A vs. B and p<0.67 for A vs. C). Pts in group A did not require treatment by definition; time to treatment (TTT) for group B was median 35 (0–243) mo and group C 66 (0–243) mo (p<0.0001). Median OS for all pts was 191 (0–369) mo. Two deaths occurred in group A; 1 of Richter’s transformation at 77 mo and 1 of unknown causes at 78 mo; median OS for groups B and C was 189 (0–311) mo and 127 (69–311) mo respectively (p<0.025). In group A, 1 pt (1.5%) transformed, as did 15 (5.6%) in group B (8 Richter’s and 7 PLL) and 4 (6%) in group C (1 Richter’s, 3 PLL, p<0.46). At a cutoff in LCD of 10 and 20 the difference in OS between groups was maintained (see Table). Characteristic OS @ 120 mo (%) Lymphocyte count at Dx (X109/L) Group A (stable ≥ 72 mo, n=66) Group B (all others, n=269) Group C (not stable, ≥72 f/u mo, n=62) All pts 93 64 64 ≤10 100 100 100 >10 91 64 64 ≤20 93 38 38 >20 0 of 2 0 of 5 0 of 5 p (log rank) A vs. B p<0.023 A vs. C p<0.025 In conclusion, in this series of 335 patients with CLL, lower lymphocyte count at diagnosis predicted for long-term stability, decreased requirement for treatment and improved OS.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.279 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBloodSame topicChronic Lymphocytic Leukemia ResearchFrench-language works237,207