MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

The role of salvage induction chemotherapy after azacitidine (AZA) treatment failure.

2013· article· en· W2599455091 on OpenAlexaff
Karen Yee, Joseph Brandwein, Aaron D. Schimmer, Vikas Gupta, Mark D. Minden, Andre C. Schuh

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Myeloid Leukemia Research
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineAzacitidineChemotherapySalvage therapyInduction chemotherapySurgeryOncology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

7078 Background: Hypomethylating agents (HMA) such as AZA, are considered standard of care for patients (pts) with IPSS Int-2 or High-risk MDS. These agents are not curative. Many centers have used HMAs as a bridge to alloSCT in pts with MDS in an attempt to reduce tumor burden and prolong time to progression to AML. However, pts are at risk of AZA treatment failure, which may delay or prevent subsequent alloSCT. Recent data have demonstrated poor responses to intensive chemotherapy after AZA failure [ORR of 0% (0 of 4 pts) to 14% (3 of 22 pts) (J Clin Oncol 2011; Br J Haematol 2012)]. Methods: This retrospective analysis evaluates the outcomes of 18 pts with MDS, CMML and AML, who failed AZA therapy, and subsequently received induction chemotherapy at the Princess Margaret between July 2009 and December 2012. Results: Median age was 57.7 y (range, 19 - 75 y); only 1 pt was > 70 y. 56% were male. Of the 18 pts, 83% were treated for MDS, 6% CMML-2, and 11% AML. IPSS was Int-2/High-risk in 16 pts and Int-1 risk in 2 pts. 83% of pts had been treated with AZA as first-line therapy. Two pts had received growth factors & 1 pt hydroxyurea prior to AZA. Median number of AZA cycles administered was 5.5 (range, 1 - 18) with 72% of pts receiving < 6 cycles. Eleven (61%) pts had primary AZA failure, 5 (28%) secondary AZA failure, and 2 (11%) were taken off AZA to receive induction chemotherapy as an HLA-identical donor was found. At the time of induction chemotherapy, 15 pts had s/tAML, 2 RAEB-2 and 1 CMML-2. Cytogenetic risk was intermediate in 4 and poor in 11 pts, respectively. Karyotype analysis was not done or inconclusive in 3 pts. ORR was 44% and 37.5% in all pts and in AZA failures only, respectively. CR rate was 22% and 25%, CRi 27% and 12.5%, and MLFS 6% and 0% in all pts and in AZA failures only, respectively. Four pts died during induction. Four of 8 responders received an alloSCT, with the remaining 4 pts relapsing (3 while awaiting an alloSCT). Median F/U of all pts was 12.6 mos, with a median OS of 8.3 mos. Conclusions: Contrary to prior reports, salvage induction chemotherapy can yield responses in a significant number of pts who have failed AZA therapy. However, response duration and OS remain poor for AZA treatment failures. There is an unmet need for novel therapeutic agents in this group of patients.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.056
GPT teacher head0.427
Teacher spread0.371 · 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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicAcute Myeloid Leukemia Research→French-language works237,207→