A phase 1 study of the CXCR4 antagonist plerixafor in combination with high‐dose cytarabine and etoposide in children with relapsed or refractory acute leukemias or myelodysplastic syndrome: A Pediatric Oncology Experimental Therapeutics Investigators’ Consortium study (POE 10‐03)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Plerixafor, a reversible CXCR4 antagonist, inhibits interactions between leukemic blasts and the bone marrow stromal microenvironment and may enhance chemosensitivity. A phase 1 trial of plerixafor in combination with intensive chemotherapy in children and young adults with relapsed or refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), acute myeloid leukemia (AML), and myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) was performed to determine a tolerable and biologically active dose. PROCEDURE: /dose) followed 4 hr later by high-dose cytarabine (every 12 hr) and etoposide (daily). RESULTS: Nineteen patients (13 with AML, 5 with ALL, 1 with MDS) were treated. The most common grade 3 or greater nonhematologic toxicities attributable to plerixafor were febrile neutropenia and hypokalemia. There were no dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs). Plerixafor exposure increased with increasing dose levels and clearance was similar on days 1 and 5. Eighteen patients were evaluable for response. Two patients achieved complete remission (CR) and one patient achieved CR with incomplete hematologic recovery (CRi): all three had AML. No responses were seen in patients with ALL or MDS. Plerixafor mobilized leukemic blasts into the peripheral blood in 14 of 16 evaluable patients (median 3.4-fold increase), and the degree of mobilization correlated with surface CXCR4 expression. CONCLUSIONS: Plerixafor, in combination with high-dose cytarabine and etoposide, was well tolerated in children and young adults with relapsed/refractory acute leukemias and MDS. While biologic responses were observed, clinical responses in this heavily pretreated cohort were modest.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".