MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2990706354 · doi:10.1182/blood-2019-125226

Increased Tumour Burden over a 36 Month Period in Chronic Myeloid Leukemia Patients Following Imatinib Discontinuation: Role of Digital PCR

2019· article· en· W2990706354 on OpenAlexaff
Elisa Diral, Philipp le Coutre, Enrico Marco Gottardi, Chiara Elena, Micaela Bergamaschi, Sarit Assouline, Eros Di Bona, Jessica Petiti, Fabio Stagno, Alessandra Iurlo, Dong‐Wook Kim, Alessandra Pirola, Maria Luisa Bonanomi, Patrizia Crivori, Rocco Piazza, Carmen Fava, Carlo Gambacorti‐Passerini

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Myeloid Leukemia Treatments
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityJewish General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImatinibDiscontinuationMedicineMyeloid leukemiaImatinib mesylateInternal medicineDigital polymerase chain reactionOncologyGastroenterologyPolymerase chain reactionBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction. Discontinuation (D/C) of Imatinib or other TKIs in Chronic Myeloid Leukemia (CML) represents an important issue in the management of this disease. It is generally accepted that relapse develops (and treatment must be resumed) when patients (pts) lose Major Molecular Remission (MMR), i.e. when the amount of the BCR-ABL1 transcript, measured in peripheral blood by RT-PCR, exceeds 0.1 %. The Imatinib Suspension And Validation (ISAV) study, which started in 2011, enrolled pts with CML treated with Imatinib who showed no evidence of BCR-ABL1 transcript for at least 18 months before enrollment. Methods. A digital PCR (dPCR) for BCR-ABL1 was performed at the time of Imatinib D/C while a second dPCR was performed when non relapsed patients exited the study, 36 months later. dPCR experiments were performed by the QX200 system (BioRad) in the same lab and using the same methodology. The BCR-ABL1 fusion and ABL1 transcripts were quantified using DigiDrop P210 MasterMix and DigiDrop P210 Positive Control (Bioclarma), according to manufacturer's protocol. The target concentration in each sample was expressed as percentage of BCR-ABL1/ABL1. Results. A total of 107 pts were enrolled in the ISAV study. Relapses occurred in 54 pts (52%); among the 53 non relapsed pts, 41 (77%) presented at least one positive RT-PCR result following Imatinib D/C, and only 12 (23%) maintained PCR negativity throughout the duration of the study. Among the non-relapsed pts dPCR performed at treatment D/C showed positivity in 20.6% of cases (95% confidence interval [C.I.] 9-36%), while 91.1% of pts (95%, C.I. 80-97%) evaluated 36 months later showed a positive dPCR value, although no patient resumed treatment. The evaluation of non relapsed pts by dPCR showed that mean values at D/C were 0.00143% +/- 0.0006 (SE); when tested at study exit, the same pts showed average dPCR values of 0.0115 % +/- 0.002. This difference is statistically highly significant and corresponds to a change of approximately 1 log in the residual tumor burden: from 2x107 to 2x108 cells. There was no correlation between the results of RT-PCR performed during the study and the dPCR status at study exit: pts who tested negative by RT-PCR during the study were uniformly negative in dPCR at D/C but tested positive at study exit in 83.3% of cases; pts who showed at least on positive RT-PCR during the study showed positivity by dPCR in 25% at D/C and in 89.3% at study exit. Finally, half of the pts who tested negative by dPCR at study exit showed dPCR positivity when tested at the time of Imatinib D/C. Conclusions. These results show that during a three year period, the D/C of Imatinib led to the increase of approximately 1 log in the tumour burden of non-relapsed pts, although none of them lost MMR and resumed treatment. These data strongly indicate the need for a long-term monitoring of pts who D/C Imatinib; they also suggest that the functional status of residual CML cells rather than their number could represent the critical factor to predict the tumour load present after 3 years of Imatinib D/C. Disclosures Le Coutre: Incyte: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Elena:Novartis: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy. Assouline:Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Honoraria. Stagno:Incyte: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria. Iurlo:Novartis: Other: Speaker Honoraria; Incyte: Other: Speaker Honoraria; Pfizer: Other: Speaker Honoraria. Kim:Novartis: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Il-Yang co.: Research Funding. Fava:Pfizer: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Incyte: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria. Gambacorti-Passerini:Bristol-Meyers Squibb: Consultancy; Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.225
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBloodSame topicChronic Myeloid Leukemia TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207