Cytogenetic risk determines outcomes after allogeneic transplantation in older patients with acute myeloid leukemia in their second complete remission: A Center for <scp>I</scp>nternational <scp>B</scp>lood and <scp>M</scp>arrow <scp>T</scp>ransplant <scp>R</scp>esearch cohort analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) offers curative potential to a number of older patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in their first complete remission. However, there are limited data in the literature concerning post-HCT outcomes for older patients in their second complete remission (CR2). METHODS: The purpose of the current study was to retrospectively investigate within the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research database parameters influencing posttransplant outcomes for patients 60 years of age or older undergoing HCT for AML in CR2. RESULTS: In total, 196 patients from 78 centers were identified; the median age was 64 years (range, 60-78 years). Seventy-one percent had a Karnofsky performance status ≥ 90 at the time of HCT. Reduced-intensity conditioning regimens were used in 159 patients (81%). A univariate analysis demonstrated a 3-year overall survival (OS) rate of 42% (95% confidence interval [CI], 35%-49%), a leukemia-free survival rate of 37% (95% CI, 30%-44%), a cumulative incidence of nonrelapse mortality of 25% (95% CI, 19%-32%), and a cumulative incidence of relapse (CIR) of 38% (95% CI, 31%-45%). A multivariate analysis demonstrated that cytogenetic risk was the only independent risk factor for OS (P = .023) with a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.14 (95% CI, 0.59-2.19) for intermediate-risk cytogenetics and an HR of 2.32 (95% CI, 1.05-5.14) for unfavorable-risk cytogenetics. For CIR, cytogenetic risk was also the only independent prognostic factor (P = .01) with an HR of 1.10 (95% CI, 0.47-2.56) for intermediate-risk cytogenetics and an HR of 2.98 (95% CI, 1.11-8.00) for unfavorable-risk cytogenetics. CONCLUSIONS: Allogeneic HCT is a curative treatment option for older patients with AML in CR2, particularly for those with favorable or intermediate cytogenetic risk. Cancer 2017;123:2035-2042. © 2017 American Cancer Society.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".