Superiority of Pediatric Chemotherapy over Allogeneic Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation for Philadelphia Chromosome Negative Adult ALL in First Complete Remission: A Combined Analysis of Dana-Farber ALL Consortium and CIBMTR Cohorts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction: In adults with Philadelphia chromosome negative (Ph-) acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), the optimal post-remission therapy remains uncertain. Although allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) in first complete remission (CR1) has become a widely adopted curative strategy, the need for HCT may be supplanted by intensive, pediatric-style chemotherapy regimens. These two approaches have not previously been compared. Methods: We evaluated the outcomes of 422 related or unrelated donor HCT recipients aged 18-50 years with Ph-ALL in CR1 between 06/2002 and 12/2011 as reported to the CIBMTR. This was compared to a concurrent cohort of 108 Ph- ALL CR1 pts (18-50 years) who received a Dana Farber Cancer Institute (DFCI) ALL Consortium pediatric regimen consisting of intensive, non-HCT therapy. Primary outcome was disease-free survival (DFS). Patients in the DFCI chemotherapy cohort who received HCT in CR1 were censored at the day of HCT. Left-truncated analysis methods were used to adjust time from CR1 to transplant. Results: The HCT cohort was older (median age 34 vs. 30 years, p=0.001) and had higher diagnostic WBC counts (median 12x109/L [range <1-515) vs. 8x109/L [1-1424], p=0.001, respectively). The proportion of patients with T –ALL was lower in the HCT cohort (14% vs. 22%, p=0.03), while the incidence of t(4;11)/MLL was similar in both groups (8% vs. 10%, respectively). Of the HCT cohort 396 (94%) underwent myeloablative (MA) conditioning. Donor source was matched related donor in 176 (42%), 8/8 unrelated donors in 168 (40%), and 7/8 (18%) from 7/8 unrelated donors. In univariate analyses (Figure 1) cumulative incidence of relapse at 4 years was similar in both groups (HCT 25% [19-28] vs. chemo 23% [15-32] p=0.97). Two-year treatment-related mortality (TRM) was higher in the HCT cohort (HCT 33% [28-39] vs. chemo 4% [1-8], p<0.0001). At 4 years, DFS was superior in the chemo cohort (HCT 40% [35-45] vs. chemo 71% [60-79], p<0.0001). Four year OS also favored chemo (HCT 45% [40-50] vs. chemo 73% [63-81], p<0.0001). In multivariable analysis, independent factors predictive of treatment failure (relapse or death) were HCT (HR 3.11 [2.08 – 4.66], p<0.001) and the presence of CNS disease at diagnosis (HR 1.56 [1.03 – 2.38], p=0.04). The sole factor associated with poorer OS was the administration of HCT (HR 2.86 [1.88 – 4.34], p<0.0001). The favorable OS with chemo was maintained when restricting the HCT cohort to those recipients with related donors or fully matched (8/8) unrelated donors and those whose time from diagnosis to CR1 was <8 weeks (HR 2.14 [1.36-3.35], p=0.001). Similar outcomes were seen when restricting the HCT cohort to those who achieved CR1 < 8 weeks from diagnosis and received myeloablative conditioning. Conclusion: In this comparison of two cohorts of younger Ph- negative adults in CR1, post-remission therapy with an intensive, pediatric-inspired, chemotherapy-based regimen conferred a survival advantage when compared to allogeneic HCT. The high TRM associated with HCT is a major factor in determining outcomes after HCT. In an era of increasing adoption of pediatric regimens for adults with Ph- ALL, allogeneic HCT may no longer be required for the majority of patients who achieve CR1. These data support the need for randomized controlled studies in Ph- ALL comparing pediatric-inspired non-HCT regimens to allogeneic HCT-based therapy. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".