MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3094903924 · doi:10.1182/blood-2020-141774

Failures and Successes in Pediatric Patients with Acute Myeloid Leukemia with First Relapse: A Large International Report on Current Treatment Strategies and Outcome

2020· article· en· W3094903924 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mareike Rasche, Martin Zimmermann, Emma Steidel, Todd A. Alonzo, Richard Aplenc, Jean‐Pierre Bourquin, Heidrun Boztug, Alan S. Gamis, Robert B. Gerbing, Iveta Janotová, Thomas Lehrnbecher, Nora Muehlegger, Nils von Neuhoff, Naghmeh Niktoreh, Lucie Šrámková, Jan Starý, Christiane Walter, Ursula Creutzig, Michael Dworzak, E. Anders Kolb, Dirk Reinhardt

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Myeloid Leukemia Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCohortInternal medicinePediatricsCog

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Children with high risk acute myeloid leukemia (AML) still experience consistently high rates of relapse. Survival after first relapse increased from 21% between 1987 and 1997 up to 39% in recent studies. However, since 2009, there have been no publications on subsequent large pediatric AML relapse trials. As the indications for HSCT during first-line treatment have been extended since then, the current survival of these patients at relapse remains unclear. Herein, we report outcome results from the BFM and COG study group, which represents the largest available dataset analyzed for post-relapse survival. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Pediatric patients with first relapse of AML (no Down syndrome, secondary leukemia or FAB M3) have been analyzed from two large study groups with patients from the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Germany, Austria, Czech Republic and Switzerland. Out of 1222 patients in the BFM cohort (AML-BFM study 2004, registry 2012 and study 2012), 350 experienced at least one relapse and 197 of those had a first relapse after closure of the last I-BFM relapse trial (04/2009 through 2017). Within the Children's Oncology Group (COG) Phase 3 trials (AAML0531 and AAML1031, n=2119) 852 pediatric patients suffered a relapse. Five-year probability of overall survival (pOS) and event-free survival (pEFS) were calculated according to Kaplan-Meier. EFS was calculated for the BFM cohort as time from relapse to the next event (second relapse, death, failure to achieve a second remission or secondary malignancy) or until last follow-up, while OS reflects the time from relapse until death or last follow-up. The Cox proportional hazards model was used for multivariate analysis of outcomes. Living patients were censored at last follow-up with a median follow-up after relapse of 4·2 years (BFM) and 4·8 years (COG). Data have been frozen at 03/27/2020 (BFM) and 03/31/2020 (COG). RESULTS: In the 197 patients with relapse after closure of the last BFM relapse trial (04/2009 through 2017) the pOS at 5 years was 42±4% (BFM). The 5-year pOS in patients relapsing after COG trials 2006-2018 was 35±2% (n=852). Patients experiencing a relapse between 2014 to 2017 had a pOS of 49±6% (BFM, n=78) and 40±3% (COG, n=333). Risk classification at initial diagnosis and a short time from diagnosis to relapse predicted a diminished survival probability in both cohorts (see Table 1). However, the absence of full hematopoietic regeneration of the bone marrow after re-induction did not predict survival: Within the BFM dataset, a subgroup analysis in all patients receiving DNX-FLA (n=156) have been performed. Initial characteristics are comparable to the total cohort. Among these patients 147 were evaluable for response (7 excluded due to early death before evaluation, 2 for insufficient data). Eighty-nine (57%) achieved a CR (n=69) or CRp (n=20) and 52 (33%) no response. Overall survival was superior for patients with a CR/CRp (54±6% (CR/CRp) vs. 32±7% (No CR/CRp); p=0·0064), but long-term survival was still possible even with a poor re-induction response. Patients with a CRp had a comparable survival to those with a CR after a second re-induction (pOS 60±11% (CRp) vs. pOS 52±7% (CR); p=0·57). Patients with >5% leukemic blasts (n=32) had the lowest survival (pOS 27±9%). The 5-year pEFS for this cohort was 29±4% (pEFS 50±6% (CR) vs. pEFS 50±11% (CRp)). The analysis of post-relapse treatment showed that the vast majority of patients who survive had a HSCT following relapse. By landmark analysis, survival was significantly higher in patients with subsequent HSCT compared to that of non-transplanted patients (BFM: pOS 53±4%, n=154 vs. pOS 5±5%, n=21; p(Mantel-Byar)=0·0002). CONCLUSION: This is the largest report to date on post relapse survival in children with AML. Our analysis confirmed previously described risk factors for poor survival while also highlighting new findings contrary to established standards. Strikingly, the absence of full hematopoietic regeneration of the bone marrow after re-induction did not predict survival at first relapse, thereby questioning the current value of the established International Working Group Criteria published by Cheson et al for response-evaluation in pediatric AML. As the international pediatric AML community embarks on collaborative efforts to evaluate new therapies in children with relapsed AML, a comprehensive review of post relapse survival is critical. Disclosures Bourquin: Servier: Other: Travel Support. Reinhardt:Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; CLS Behring: Research Funding; bluebird bio: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.270 · 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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood→Same topicAcute Myeloid Leukemia Research→French-language works237,207→