MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3097541653 · doi:10.1182/blood-2020-136609

Sex-Based Disparities in Outcome in Childhood Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia (ALL): A Children's Oncology Group (COG) Report

2020· article· en· W3097541653 on OpenAlexaff
Sumit Gupta, David T. Teachey, Meenakshi Devidas, Zhiguo Chen, Kimberly P. Dunsmore, Eric Larsen, Kelly W. Maloney, Leonard A. Mattano, Stuart S. Winter, Andrew J. Carroll, Nyla A. Heerema, Michael J. Borowitz, Brent L. Wood, William L. Carroll, Naomi Winick, Elizabeth A. Raetz, Mignon L. Loh, Stephen P. Hunger

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Lymphoblastic Leukemia research
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCumulative incidenceCogMinimal residual diseaseInternal medicineProportional hazards modelCohortAcute lymphocytic leukemiaPediatricsLeukemiaIncidence (geometry)OncologyLymphoblastic Leukemia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Survival for children with B and T acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL, T-ALL) has continued to improve. In past cohorts, boys experienced inferior survival outcomes compared to girls. Though reasons are unknown, previous investigators have suggested that these disparities are explained by imbalances in risk factors, such as a higher proportion of T-ALL among boys. We thus examined whether sex-based disparities persist with modern intensive therapy when adjusted for other risk factors. We also determined if patterns of toxicity and treatment failure varied by sex. METHODS: We identified a cohort of patients age 1-30.99 years enrolled on frontline COG trials for B-ALL (standard risk: AALL0331; high risk: AALL0232) and T-ALL (AALL0434) between 2004-2014. Duration of treatment was sex-dependent, with boys receiving an additional year of Maintenance therapy. A limited number of B-ALL patients (those with slow early response or CNS3 status) underwent cranial radiation, while all intermediate and standard risk T-ALL patients did so. Sex-based differences in the distribution of various prognostic factors were explored, including age at diagnosis, initial white blood cell (WBC) count, central nervous system (CNS) status, leukemia cytogenetics, and end Induction minimal residual disease (MRD). Event-free and overall survival (EFS, OS) were compared between boys and girls using log-rank tests and multivariable Cox regression analyses. Finally, we explored sex-based differences in toxicity rates and in the cumulative incidence of specific causes of treatment failure, including treatment-related mortality (TRM), overall relapse, and subcategories of relapse by site. RESULTS: The study cohort included 8,202 patients with B-ALL [4,463 (54.4%) boys] and 1,562 patients with T-ALL [1,161 (74.3%) boys]. Among B-ALL patients, boys were older than girls and slightly more likely to have unfavorable cytogenetics (Table 1). There was no difference in the distribution of initial WBC or CNS status. Among T-ALL patients, boys were again older than girls, but other prognostic factors did not differ by sex (Table 1). B-ALL boys were less likely to be end induction marrow MRD < 0.01% [3,268 (76.1%) vs. 2791 (78.1%); p=0.04] while T-ALL boys were more likely to achieve end induction MRD < 0.01% [659 (59.0%) vs. 221 (56.8%); p=0.01], although in both cases absolute differences were small. EFS and OS were inferior in B-ALL boys compared to girls (5-year: EFS 84.6%±0.6% vs. 86.4%±0.6%; p=0.003; OS 91.7%±0.4% vs. 92.8%±0.5%; p=0.046). The risk of inferior outcomes among B-ALL boys persisted after adjustment for other prognostic factors in both EFS [hazard ratio (HR) 1.18, 95% confidence interval (1.05-1.33); p=0.003] and OS (HR 1.17 (1.00-1.37); p=0.048). There were no sex-based differences in EFS or OS in T-ALL. When examining specific toxicities and causes of treatment failure, osteonecrosis rates were lower among boys [297/5,624 (5.3%) vs. 281/4,140 (6.8%); p=0.002]. The incidence of TRM did not differ by sex. The incidence of relapse was, however, greater in boys than girls with B-ALL (11.2%±0.5% vs. 9.6%±0.5%; p=0.001). This risk was attributable to a higher incidence of relapses involving the CNS (4.2%±0.3% vs. 2.5%±0.3%; p<0.0001) and in other extramedullary sites, including the testes (1.3%±0.2% vs. 0.7%±0.1%; p= 0.001). Notably, there was no difference in the cumulative incidence of isolated bone marrow relapse (5.4%±0.4% vs. 6.2%±0.4%; p=0.49). Among T-ALL patients, there were no sex-based differences in the cumulative incidence of relapse, either overall or by relapse site. CONCLUSIONS: Small sex-based disparities in ALL outcomes persist despite overall improvements, extended treatment duration, and extra intrathecal therapy in boys. This is mainly attributable to a higher risk of CNS relapse in boys with B-ALL, despite no sex-based differences in initial CNS status, and persists when adjusted for other prognostic risk factors. The lack of sex-based disparities in T-ALL by sex may be in part due to an increased use of CNS radiation, given older studies which observed increases in CNS relapse rates among boys but not girls when radiation was eliminated. Future studies to determine the mechanisms underlying this disparity, including potential sex-based differences in steroid metabolism, are warranted. Disclosures Teachey: Amgen: Consultancy; Sobi: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; La Roche: Consultancy. Dunsmore:Dexcom: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Mattano:Melinta Therapeutics: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy. Borowitz:Amgen: Honoraria. Raetz:Pfizer: Research Funding; Celgene/BMS: Other. Loh:Pfizer: Other: Institutional Research Funding; Medisix Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Hunger:Novartis: Consultancy; Amgen Inc.: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Honoraria.

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)0.002
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.273 · 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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBloodSame topicAcute Lymphoblastic Leukemia researchFrench-language works237,207