Pretransplant Consolidation Is Not Beneficial for Adults with ALL Undergoing Myeloablative Allogeneic Transplantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (alloHCT) is curative for patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) who achieve complete remission (CR1) with chemotherapy. However, the benefit of consolidation chemotherapy remains uncertain in patients undergoing alloHCT. We compared clinical outcomes of 524 adult patients with ALL in CR1 who received ≥2 (n = 109), 1 (n = 93), or 0 cycles (n = 322) of consolidation before myeloablative alloHCT from 2008 to 2012. As expected, time to alloHCT was longer with increasing cycles of consolidation. Patients receiving ≥2, 1, or 0 cycles of consolidation had an adjusted 3-year cumulative incidence of relapse of 20%, 27%, and 22%; 1-year transplant-related mortality (TRM) of 16%, 18%, and 23%; adjusted 3-year leukemia-free survival (LFS) of 54%, 48%, and 47%; and 3-year overall survival (OS) of 63%, 59%, and 54% (all P values >.40). Multivariable analysis confirmed that consolidation was not prognostic for LFS (relative risk, 1.20, 95% confidence interval, .86 to 1.67; P = .28 for no consolidation; RR, 1.18, 95% confidence interval, .79 to 1.76; P = .41 for 1 cycle versus ≥2 cycles = reference). Similarly, consolidation was not associated with OS, relapse, TRM, or graft-versus-host disease. We conclude that consolidation chemotherapy does not appear to provide added benefit in adult ALL patients with available donors who undergo myeloablative alloHCT in CR1.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".