Minimal Residual Disease Prior to and After Haematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation in Children and Adolescents With Acute Lymphoblastic Leukaemia: What Level of Negativity Is Relevant?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Minimal residual disease (MRD) assessment plays a central role in risk stratification and treatment guidance in paediatric patients with acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL). As such, MRD prior to haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) is a major factor that is independently correlated with outcome. High burden of MRD is negatively correlated with post-transplant survival, as both the risk of leukaemia recurrence and non-relapse mortality increase with greater levels of MRD. Despite growing evidence supporting these findings, controversies still exist. In particular, it is still not clear whether multiparameter flow cytometry and real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction, which is used to recognise immunoglobulin and T-cell receptor gene rearrangements, can be employed interchangeably. Moreover, the higher sensitivity in MRD quantification offered by next-generation sequencing techniques may further refine the ability to stratify transplant-associated risks. While MRD quantification from bone marrow prior to HSCT remains the state of the art, heavily pre-treated patients may benefit from additional staging, such as using 18 F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography to detect focal residues of disease. Additionally, the timing of MRD detection (i.e., immediately before administration of the conditioning regimen or weeks before) is a matter of debate. Pre-transplant MRD negativity has previously been associated with superior outcomes; however, in the recent For Omitting Radiation Under Majority age (FORUM) study, pre-HSCT MRD positivity was associated with neither relapse risk nor survival. In this review, we discuss the level of MRD that may require pre-transplant therapy intensification, risking time delay and complications (as well as losing the window for HSCT if disease progression occurs), as opposed to an adapted post-transplant strategy to achieve long-term remission. Indeed, MRD monitoring may be a valuable tool to guide individualised treatment decisions, including tapering of immunosuppression, cellular therapies (such as donor lymphocyte infusions) or additional immunotherapy (such as bispecific T-cell engagers or chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy).
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".