Effects of Bosutinib Treatment on Renal Function in Patients With Philadelphia Chromosome-Positive Leukemias
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BackgroundThe purpose of the study was to assess renal function in patients with Philadelphia chromosome-positive leukemias receiving bosutinib or imatinib.Patients and MethodsPatients received first-line bosutinib (n = 248) or imatinib (n = 251; phase III trial), or second-line or later bosutinib (phase I/II trial; n = 570). Adverse events (AEs) and changes from baseline in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and serum creatinine were assessed.ResultsTime from the last patient's first dose to data cutoff was ≥ 48 months. Renal AEs were reported in 73/570 patients (13%) receiving second-line or later bosutinib, and in 22/248 (9%) and 16/251 (6%) receiving first-line bosutinib and imatinib, respectively. eGFR in patients receiving bosutinib declined over time with more patients developing Grade ≥ 3b eGFR (< 45 mL/min/1.73 m2 according to the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease method) with second-line or later bosutinib (139/570, 24%) compared with first-line bosutinib (26/248, 10%) and imatinib (25/251, 10%); time to Grade ≥ 3b eGFR was shortest with second-line or later bosutinib. Similar proportions of patients receiving second-line or later bosutinib (74/139, 53%), first-line bosutinib (15/26, 58%), and first-line imatinib (15/25, 60%) improved to ≥ 45 mL/min/1.73 m2 eGFR as of the last follow-up. In a regression analysis, first-line treatment with bosutinib versus imatinib was not a significant predictor of Grade ≥ 3b eGFR.ConclusionLong-term bosutinib treatment is associated with an apparently reversible decline in renal function with frequency and characteristics similar to renal decline observed with long-term imatinib treatment. Patients with risk factors for Grade ≥ 3b eGFR should be monitored closely.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".