Blinatumomab versus chemotherapy in first salvage or in later salvage for B-cell precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Outcomes for adults with relapsed/refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) are poor with chemotherapy, particularly in later salvage. The TOWER study examined survival, remission, bridge to allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), and safety with blinatumomab versus chemotherapy. This report examined outcomes separately for study treatment as first or later salvage. Adults with Philadelphia chromosome-negative B-cell precursor ALL relapsed/refractory to chemotherapy were randomly assigned 2:1 to receive blinatumomab by continuous infusion for 4 weeks in 6-week cycles, or standard salvage chemotherapy. Overall survival for blinatumomab versus chemotherapy was higher both in first salvage and in later salvage. Safety was similar between patients in first salvage and those in later salvage. Blinatumomab as later salvage was associated with higher complete remission rates and served as a bridge to allogeneic HSCT, supporting the use of blinatumomab in both settings. This study is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02013167.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".