Outcome of children and adolescents with Down syndrome treated on Dana‐Farber Cancer Institute Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia Consortium protocols 00–001 and 05‐001
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Children and adolescents with Down syndrome (DS) and acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) are reported to have increased relapse rates and therapy-related mortality (TRM). Treatment regimens for DS-ALL patients often include therapy modifications. Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (DFCI) ALL Consortium protocols have used same risk-stratified treatment for patients with and without DS. PROCEDURES: We compared clinical and outcome data of DS (n = 38) and non-DS (n = 1,248) patients enrolled on two consecutive DFCI ALL trials 00-001 (2000-2004) and 05-001 (2005-2011) with similar risk adapted therapy regardless of DS status. RESULTS: There was no difference in demographic or presenting clinical features between two groups except absence of T-cell phenotype and lower frequency of hyperdiploidy in DS-ALL group. All DS-ALL patients achieved complete remission; four relapsed and one subsequently died. There was no TRM in DS-ALL patients. DS-ALL patients had significantly higher rates of mucositis (52% vs. 12%, p < 0.001), non-CNS thrombosis (18% vs. 8%; p = 0.036), and seizure (16% vs. 5%, p = 0.010). Compared to non-DS-ALL patients, DS-ALL patients had a higher incidence of infections during all therapy phases. The 5-year event-free and overall survival rates of DS-ALL patients were similar to non-DS-ALL patients (91% [95% confidence interval (CI), 81-100] vs. 84% [95% CI, 82-86]; 97% [95% CI, 92-100] vs. 91% [95% CI, 90-93]). CONCLUSION: The low rates of relapse and TRM indicate that uniform risk-stratified therapy for DS-ALL and non-DS-ALL patients on DFCI ALL Consortium protocols was safe and effective, although the increased rate of toxicity in the DS-ALL patients highlights the importance of supportive care during therapy.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".