An investigation of toxicities and survival in Hispanic children and adolescents with ALL: Results from the Dana‐Farber Cancer Institute ALL Consortium protocol 05‐001
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study compared the relative incidence of treatment-related toxicities and the event-free and overall survival between Hispanic and non-Hispanic children undergoing therapy for acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) on Dana-Farber Cancer Institute ALL Consortium protocol 05-001. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Secondary analysis of prospectively collected data from a phase III multicenter study in children and adolescents of 1-18 years with previously untreated ALL. RESULTS: Between 2005 and 2011, 794 eligible patients enrolled on DFCI 05-001, 730 of whom were included in this analysis (19% [N = 150] Hispanic, 73% [N = 580] non-Hispanic). Hispanic patients were more likely to be ≥10 years of age (32% vs. 24%, P = 0.045) at diagnosis. Toxicity analyses revealed that Hispanic patients had significantly lower cumulative incidence of bone fracture (P < 0.001) and osteonecrosis (ON; P = 0.047). In multivariable risk regression, the risk of ON was significantly lower in Hispanic patients ≥10 years (HR 0.23; P = 0.006). Hispanic patients had significantly lower 5-year event-free survival (EFS) (79.4%; 95% CI: 71.6-85.2) and overall survival (OS) (89.2%; 95% CI: 82.7-93.4) than non-Hispanic patients (EFS: 87.5%; 95% CI: 84.5-90.0, P = 0.004; OS: 92.7%; 95% CI: 90.2-94.6, P = 0.006). Exploratory analyses revealed differences between Hispanic and non-Hispanic patients in the frequency of common variants in genes related to toxicity or ALL outcome. CONCLUSION: Hispanic children treated for ALL on DFCI 05-001 had fewer bone-related toxicities and inferior survival than non-Hispanic patients. While disease biology is one explanatory variable for outcome disparities, these findings suggest that biologic and non-biologic mechanisms affecting drug delivery and exposure in this population may be important contributing factors as well.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".