Health-Related Quality of Life of Blinatumomab for Relapsed or Refractory B-Cell Precursor Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia in a Randomized, Open-Label Phase 3 Study (TOWER): A Subgroup Analysis By Prior Allogeneic Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background In the phase 3 TOWER study, patients with relapsed or refractory (r/r) Ph– B-cell precursor (BCP) acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) who received blinatumomab had longer overall survival and improved health-related quality of life (HRQoL) versus patients who received standard of care chemotherapy (SOC). Because ALL patients who relapse from previous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) have poorer prognosis, we analyzed the HRQoL of TOWER patients with or without prior allogeneic HSCT (alloHSCT). Methods Adults (n=405) with r/r Ph– BCP ALL were randomized 2:1 to 2 cycles of induction blinatumomab (n=271) or SOC (n=134), followed by up to 3 consolidation cycles; 12 months of maintenance was allowed. AlloHSCT was allowed after cycle 1. HRQoL was assessed in cycle 1 (days 8, 15, and 29) using the EORTC QLQ-C30 Questionnaire. For global health status and functioning scales, a higher score indicates better HRQoL; for symptom scales/items, a lower score indicates better HRQoL. Time to deterioration analyses assessed the treatment effect based on a 10-point deterioration (clinically significant threshold) from baseline. Results Of 342 evaluable patients (blinatumomab, n=247; SOC, n=95); 114 (blinatumomab, n=85; SOC, n=29) and 228 (blinatumomab, n=162; SOC, n=66) did and did not, respectively, have prior alloHSCT. In those with no prior alloHSCT, changes in global health status were minimal for blinatumomab and SOC (Figure 1). In contrast, in patients with prior alloHSCT, global health status modestly improved in the blinatumomab group but worsened by ≥10 points at all time points for SOC, indicating clinically meaningful deterioration. Changes in functioning scales were minimal in the blinatumomab arm, both with or without prior alloHSCT, except for relatively improved emotional scores in patients with prior alloHSCT. In contrast, SOC patients had worsening in most functioning scales, regardless of prior alloHSCT status. This effect was most marked in those with prior alloHSCT, in whom physical, role, and social functioning deteriorated by ≥10 points. Similar patterns were observed for symptom scales/items: while blinatumomab was associated with improved or less worsening in symptom scores versus SOC, most symptom scores worsened in the SOC arm, especially in patients with prior alloHSCT, for whom all symptoms (except dyspnea) deteriorated by ≥10 points. Compared with SOC, blinatumomab was associated with a delayed time to clinically meaningful deterioration, particularly in patents with prior alloHSCT (Figure 2). Conclusions In patients with r/r Ph– BCP ALL, blinatumomab was associated with improved HRQoL compared with SOC, regardless of whether patients had received prior alloHSCT. Notably, however, the HRQoL benefit of blinatumomab was most pronounced among patients with prior alloHSCT.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".