MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

No Significance of Derivative Chromosome 9 Deletion on the Clearance Kinetics of BCR/ABL Fusion Transcripts, Cytogenetic or Molecular Response, Loss of Response or Treatment Failure to Imatinib Mesylate Therapy for Chronic Myeloid Leukemia.

2007· article· en· W2993113471 on OpenAlexaffabout
Dong Hwan Kim, Lakshmi Sriharsha, Suzanne Kamel‐Reid, Hong Chang, Hans A. Messner, Jeffrey H. Lipton

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Myeloid Leukemia Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health NetworkPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImatinib mesylateInternal medicineMedicineImatinibMyeloid leukemiabreakpoint cluster regionOncologyPhiladelphia chromosomeGastroenterologyImmunologyChromosomal translocationBiologyGeneticsGeneReceptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Deletion of the derivative chromosome 9 (der 9; del-der9) is a poor prognostic factor in chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) patients treated with hydroxyurea or interferon. However, its prognostic implication in imatinib mesylate (IM) treated patients is unclear. One study reported that IM improved but did not fully reverse the poor prognosis of CML patients with del-der 9, while another suggested that IM might overcome the poor prognostic significance of del-der 9. The purpose of current study is to evaluate the prognostic implication of del-der 9 in CML patients in terms of hematologic, cytogenetic and molecular responses, loss of response to IM and IM treatment failure rate in addition to BCR/ABL mRNA quantitative PCR monitoring. Methods: The current study included 163 CML patients with available FISH results using the LSI-BCR/ABL-(ES) probe (Vysis, IL, USA) treated at the Princess Margaret Hospital (Toronto, Canada). End points of the study included hematologic response (HR), major or complete cytogenetic response (CyR; MCyR/CCyR), major or complete molecular response (MoR; MMoR/CMoR), loss of response (LOR), treatment failure (including primary hematologic or cytogenetic resistance and LOR), progression to accelerated phase or blast crisis (AP/BC), or time to IM dose escalation to achieve further response or to overcome LOR. Results: Of 163 patients, 22 (13.5%) had del-der 9 prior to initiation of IM. No differences were noted between those with and without del-der 9 in terms of disease phase or additional cytogenetic abnormalities. No differences were noted for the time to HR (p=0.598), MCyR (p=0.281), CCyR (p=0.883), MMoR (p=0.125), or CMoR (p=0.834). Times to LOR (p=0.974), treatment failure (p=0.455), progression to AP/BC (p=0.276), or dose escalation of IM (p=0.816) were not significantly different between those with and without del-der 9. The serial monitoring of BCR/ABL mRNA quantitative PCR showed similar patterns of BCR/ABL mRNA reduction between the 2 groups. Conclusion: The presence of del-der 9 in CML patients prior to IM therapy does not influence: the response to IM therapy in terms of HR, CyR and MoR; LOR, treatment failure or progression to AP/BC; and time to dose escalation of IM. Therefore, from the clinical point of view, the presence of del-der 9 does not impact on the management of CML patients treated with IM. Figure 1. No differences of complete cytogenetic response rate (A) or major molecular response rate between patients with versus without deletion of derivative chromosome 9 after imatinib mesylate therapy Figure 1. No differences of complete cytogenetic response rate (A) or major molecular response rate between patients with versus without deletion of derivative chromosome 9 after imatinib mesylate therapy

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)0.001
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.265 · 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
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBloodSame topicChronic Myeloid Leukemia TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207