MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2911239452 · doi:10.1016/j.bbmt.2018.12.073

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

2019· article· en· W2911239452 on OpenAlexaff
Xinke Zhang, Andre C. Schuh, Ze Cong, Max S. Topp, Zachary Zimmerman, Paul Cannell, Hervé Dombret, Johan Maertens, Anthony S. Stein, Janet Franklin, Yan Li

Bibliographic record

VenueBiology of Blood and Marrow Transplantation · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Lymphoblastic Leukemia research
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlinatumomabMedicineHematopoietic stem cell transplantationInternal medicineQuality of life (healthcare)Refractory (planetary science)OncologyTransplantationLeukemiaLymphoblastic LeukemiaNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.004
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.304 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiology of Blood and Marrow TransplantationSame topicAcute Lymphoblastic Leukemia researchFrench-language works237,207