Measurable residual disease monitoring provides insufficient lead-time to prevent morphologic relapse in the majority of patients with core-binding factor acute myeloid leukemia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Core-binding factor acute myeloid leukemia is characterized by t(8;21) or inv(16) and the fusion proteins RUNX1-RUNX1T1 and CBFB-MYH11. International guidelines recommend monitoring for measurable residual disease every 3 months for 2 years after treatment. However, it is unknown if serial molecular monitoring can predict and prevent morphologic relapse. We conducted a retrospective single-center study of 114 patients in complete remission who underwent molecular monitoring with RT-qPCR of RUNX1-RUNX1T1 or CBFB-MYH11 transcripts every 3 months. Morphologic relapse was defined as re-emergence of >5% blasts and molecular relapse as ≥1 log increase in transcript level between 2 samples. Over a median follow-up time of 3.7 years (range 0.2-14.3), remission persisted in 71 (62.3%) patients but 43 (37.7%) developed molecular or morphologic relapse. Patients who achieved <3 log reduction in RUNX1-RUNX1T1 or CBFB-MYH11 transcripts at end of chemotherapy had a significantly higher risk of relapse compared to patients who achieved ≥3 log reduction (61.1% vs. 33.7%, p=0.004). The majority of relapses (74.4%, n=32) were not predicted by molecular monitoring and occurred rapidly with <100 days from molecular to morphologic relapse. Molecular monitoring enabled the detection of impending relapse and permitted pre-emptive intervention prior to morphologic relapse in only 11 (25.6%) patients. The current practice of molecular monitoring every 3 months provided insufficient lead-time to identify molecular relapses and prevent morphologic relapse in the majority of patients with core-binding factor acute myeloid leukemia treated at our institution. Further research is necessary to determine the optimal monitoring strategies for these patients.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".