Effect of early blood counts on overall survival (OS) following glasdegib + LDAC in newly diagnosed AML: BRIGHT AML 1003 post hoc analysis.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
7525 Background: Addition of glasdegib (GLAS) to LDAC approximately doubled OS without significant worsening of myelosuppression-related complications, ostensibly by targeting leukemic stem cells dependent on the hedgehog pathway, which is not involved in normal adult hematopoiesis. We assessed potential association of early blood counts and OS. Methods: In BRIGHT AML 1003, patients (pts) with newly diagnosed AML were randomized to GLAS + LDAC (n = 78) or LDAC alone (n = 38). GLAS was given once daily continuously and LDAC on days 1–10 of a 28-day cycle. We evaluated peripheral blood counts measured early in the study (cycle 2 day 1 [C2D1]), approximately 1 month before the first bone marrow assessments. OS was compared for GLAS+LDAC vs LDAC alone subgroups meeting thresholds of absolute neutrophil count (ANC; ≥1000 or 500/µL), hemoglobin (Hb; ≥10 or 9 g/dL) or platelets (≥100,000 or 50,000/µL). Data cut-off was Apr 2019. Results: Among all pts regardless of baseline values, achievement of ANC, Hb and platelet thresholds at C2D1 was associated with improved OS with GLAS+LDAC (table, left side). Notably, in pts who did not meet ANC, Hb or platelet thresholds (table, right side), OS benefit with GLAS+LDAC was also observed (table, all p≤0.05). Among pts below threshold at baseline, C2D1 recovery of platelets ≥50,000 or 100,000 and Hb ≥9 or 10 was associated with improved OS (not shown). Clinical trial information: NCT01546038 . Conclusions: In pts with newly diagnosed AML, improved OS was associated with various blood count thresholds after 1 cycle of GLAS+LDAC vs LDAC alone. In pts with baseline measurements below threshold, recovery of specific thresholds was associated with improved OS. These exploratory results are consistent with the hematopoiesis-sparing mechanism of GLAS, and merit further evaluation. [Table: see text]
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".