MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2899858024 · doi:10.1111/bjh.15657

The incidence of symptomatic osteonecrosis after allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplantation in children with acute lymphoblastic leukaemia – controversy on dexamethasone as a risk factor

2018· letter· en· W2899858024 on OpenAlexaff
Reo Tanoshima, Bruce Carleton

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Haematology · 2018
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Lymphoblastic Leukemia research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePrednisoneCumulative incidenceIncidence (geometry)DexamethasoneHematopoietic stem cell transplantationTransplantationPopulationInternal medicineHematologyRisk factorDiseasePediatricsImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In a recent article in the British Journal of Haematology, Kuhlen et al (2018) described the incidence and risk factors of symptomatic osteonecrosis (ON) after allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) in children with high-risk acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL). This study identified a low 5-year cumulative incidence of ON of 9%, and that older age at HSCT (10–15 years), diagnosis of ON before HSCT, and the presence of chronic graft-versus-host-disease (cGVHD) are risk factors of ON after HSCT. We read this article with thorough interest. We believe it is also of value to readers to understand the contribution of the types of corticosteroids to the development of ON (especially dexamethasone versus prednisone), which was not discussed in the article. The prevalence of ON in the paediatric patients after HSCT varied (3·9–29·5%), and this is partly attributable to the heterogeneity of the study population, comprising different diseases and highly variable transplant approaches (Kuhlen et al, 2018). We think it is feasible to consider additional risk factors beyond those that the authors analysed, such as age, pre-existing ON before HSCT and cGVHD, to include the types and doses of corticosteroids before and after HSCT. Corticosteroids are one of the essential medications used in the induction phase for ALL (Inaba & Pui, 2010), and resistance to initial corticosteroid treatment is a single unfavourable prognostic factor of ALL. Prednisone has been the most commonly used corticosteroid in the treatment of patients with ALL, but dexamethasone has been increasingly used for a decade, with the aim of increasing corticosteroid potency (Inaba & Pui, 2010). A major concern of using dexamethasone for ALL treatment is its high toxic potency, and studies have compared the prevalence of adverse drug reactions by corticosteroid types. Dexamethasone use has been shown to have a higher risk of ON than with other corticosteroids (Inaba & Pui, 2010). However, the impact of dexamethasone on the development of ON compared with other corticosteroids in ALL treatment remains controversial. Studies conducted at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute showed the 5-year cumulative prevalence of bone morbidity was increased in a childhood ALL protocol with dexamethasone compared to that with prednisone (36% vs. 20%) (Silverman et al, 2001; Strauss et al, 2001). The Japanese Children's Cancer and Leukaemia Study Group demonstrated the 5-year incidence of ON was higher in the protocol with dexamethasone (ALL2004: 3·6%) than in those with only prednisolone (ALL941: 0·76% and ALL2000: 0·35%) (Hyakuna et al, 2014). In the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study of 9261 childhood cancer survivors, the prevalence of ON was significantly higher in the patients with dexamethasone with or without prednisone than in the patients with prednisone alone (Kadan-Lottick et al, 2008). On the other hand, a recent randomized trial of dexamethasone versus prednisone or prednisolone for paediatric ALL failed to prove the increased risk of dexamethasone. (Mitchell et al, 2005; Möricke et al, 2016). The UK Medical Research Council protocol for childhood ALL (ALL 97/99) found no excessive risk of ON in the dexamethasone arm compared to prednisolone arm (relative risk: 0·67, 95% confidence interval: 0·24–1·88) (Mitchell et al, 2005). The five-year cumulative incidence of ON in a randomized trial of the Associazione Italiana di Ematologia e Oncologia Pediatrica - Berlin-Frankfürt-Münster (AIEOP-BFM) ALL2000 protocol did not demonstrate a difference between the dexamethasone and prednisone groups (4·6% vs. 5·1%, P = 0·69) (Möricke et al, 2016). Finally, a systematic review and meta-analysis published in 2011 concluded there was no significant difference in ON between dexamethasone and prednisone use in induction therapy (risk ratio: 1·11, 95% confidence interval: 0·82–1·50) (Teuffel et al, 2011). The controversy of the risk of ON with dexamethasone might be explained by the heterogeneity of population demographics, treatment phases of using dexamethasone and doses of corticosteroids used. Other biomarkers, such as genetic variants, might also be attributed to ON (Karol et al, 2015). The risk factors of ON in patients after HSCT are also controversial, owing to the diverse indications of HSCT, differences in donor type, conditioning regimens, the presence of cGVHD and the subsequent use of corticosteroids (Kuhlen et al, 2018). The duration and doses of the different corticosteroids used in the study by Kuhlen et al (2018) would help to inform the current evidence base on this important adverse drug reaction. The authors have no competing interests to declare. RT: contributed to the concept of the work and wrote the initial draft. BC: contributed to the concept of the work, critically reviewed the draft and approved the final version of the manuscript.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.184
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.234 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designCase report
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of HaematologySame topicAcute Lymphoblastic Leukemia researchFrench-language works237,207