MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The effect of body mass index on efficacy and safety of bosutinib or imatinib in patients with newly diagnosed chronic myeloid leukemia.

2021· article· en· W3172717443 on OpenAlexaff
Tim H. Brümmendorf, Jörge E. Cortes, Lambert Busque, Carlo Gambacorti‐Passerini, Leif Stenke, Andrea Viqueira, Eric Leip, Simon Purcell, Michael W. Deininger

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Myeloid Leukemia Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineDiscontinuationImatinibBosutinibMyeloid leukemiaBody mass indexGastroenterologyImatinib mesylateCumulative incidenceDasatinibSurgeryCohort

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

7037 Background: Bosutinib (BOS) is approved for the treatment (Tx) of Philadelphia chromosome–positive (Ph+) chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) resistant/intolerant to prior therapy and newly diagnosed Ph+ chronic phase (CP) CML. Body mass index (BMI) was shown to influence Tx response with front-line dasatinib vs imatinib (IMA). We report the efficacy and safety of BOS and IMA by BMI in patients (pts) with newly diagnosed CP CML. Methods: In the open-label BFORE trial, pts were randomized to receive 400 mg once daily BOS or IMA. Outcomes were assessed according to baseline BMI ≥25 or = 25 kg/m2. This post hoc analysis was based on the final 5-y analysis (database lock: June 12, 2020). Results: In the BOS and IMA arms, respectively, 149 (56.4%) vs 115 (43.6%) pts and 145 (54.3%) vs 122 (45.7%) pts had BMI ≥25 vs = 25. In both the BOS and IMA arms, median Tx duration and time on study was 55 mo for pts with BMI ≥25 or = 25; respective median dose intensity was 394 vs 393 mg/d and 400 vs 400 mg/d. Molecular response (MR) rates are shown in the table. Cumulative incidence of major MR was similar in pts with ≥25 vs = 25 receiving BOS (HR 0.99; 95% CI 0.74−1.31) or IMA (HR 1.09; 95% CI 0.81−1.47). Event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS) rates at 60 mo are shown in the table. Most common reasons for Tx discontinuation were adverse events (AEs) (BOS 28.2 vs 20.0%; IMA 13.3 vs 10.7%) and lack of efficacy (BOS 5.4 vs 5.2%; IMA 16.1 vs 19.8%). In pts with BMI ≥25 vs = 25, dose reductions and interruptions due to Tx-emergent AEs (TEAEs) occurred in 43.6 % vs 46.2% and 66.4% vs 69.7% of pts with BOS and 24.5% vs 24.6% and 40.6% vs 50.8% with IMA. Any grade TEAEs in ≥30% of pts with BMI ≥25 vs = 25 were diarrhea (73.8 vs 73.1%), nausea (40.9 vs 31.9%), thrombocytopenia (30.9 vs 41.2%), increased alanine (37.6 vs 28.6%) and aspartate aminotransferase (30.2 vs 20.2%) with BOS and diarrhea (49.0 vs 29.5%), nausea (46.2 vs 37.7%), muscle spasms (33.6 vs 26.2%), neutropenia (14.7 vs 32.0%) and thrombocytopenia (10.5% vs 30.3%) with IMA. Conclusions: Efficacy of BOS was consistent in pts with BMI ≥25 or = 25; however, with IMA a low (vs high) BMI appeared to be associated with worse survival outcomes. Differences in certain TEAEs were observed between BMI subgroups in both treatment arms. Clinical trial information: NCT02130557. [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 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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.346 · 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

Citations5
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicChronic Myeloid Leukemia TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207