A Randomized Phase 3 Trial of Blinatumomab Vs. Chemotherapy As Post-Reinduction Therapy in Low Risk (LR) First Relapse of B-Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia (B-ALL) in Children and Adolescents/Young Adults (AYAs): A Report from Children's Oncology Group Study AALL1331
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Standard treatment of children and AYAs with LR first relapse of B-ALL [LR defined as bone marrow with or without extramedullary (BM±EM) relapse ≥36 months or isolated EM (IEM) relapse ≥18 months from initial diagnosis, and low (<0.1%) BM minimal residual disease (MRD) at the end of reinduction chemotherapy] consists of approximately 2 years of standard chemotherapy without hematopoietic stem cell transplant. The objective of this study was to compare survival [primary: disease-free (DFS); secondary: overall (OS)] of LR first relapse B-ALL patients aged 1-30 years randomized following reinduction chemotherapy (Block 1 of UKALLR3/mitoxantrone arm) to receive either two intensive chemotherapy blocks (Blocks 2 and 3 of UKALLR3) followed by continuation and maintenance chemotherapy of UKALLR3 (chemotherapy control) vs. the same except with integration of three 4-week cycles of blinatumomab, one replacing Block 3 chemotherapy and two added during continuation and maintenance (blinatumomab experimental). All patients with central nervous system (CNS) leukemia at relapse (isolated or combined with BM relapse) received additional intensified CNS-directed chemotherapy (intrathecal and systemic) and 1800 cGy of cranial radiation during maintenance. Patients with testicular leukemia at relapse that persisted after Block 1 reinduction received 2400 cGy testicular radiation during Block 2. A total of 255 LR patients were randomized: Blinatumomab: 127; Chemotherapy: 128. Selected baseline characteristics are shown in Table 1. With median follow up of 2.9 years (data cut-off 12/31/20), the intent-to-treat (ITT) 4-year DFS (%±standard error) was 61.2±5.5% for blinatumomab vs. 48.2±6.0% for chemotherapy (p=0.15, 1-sided stratified log-rank test per pre-specified statistical plan). The 4-year OS was 91.6±3.0% for blinatumomab vs. 83.3±4.5% for chemotherapy (p=0.096). Striking differences in DFS and blinatumomab efficacy were noted according to site of first relapse (Figure 1). For BM±EM relapses, 4-year DFS was 74.0±6.4% for blinatumomab vs. 51.8±7.9% for chemotherapy (p=0.016), and 4-year OS was 96.6±2.5% for blinatumomab vs. 84.4±5.6% for chemotherapy (p=0.013). Significant predictors of DFS in Cox multivariable regression for BM±EM relapses included treatment arm, age at relapse, and time from diagnosis to first relapse (Table 2). For IEM relapses, 4-year DFS was 34.2±8.6% for blinatumomab vs. 39.3±8.5% for chemotherapy (p=0.73), and 4-year OS was 81.7±7.0% for blinatumomab vs. 80.8±7.2% for chemotherapy (p=0.61). The only predictor of DFS in IEM patients was site of first relapse [hazard ratio for testes vs. CNS 0.19 (0.04-0.87), p=0.015]. The difference in DFS between BM±EM and IEM patients was driven by excess of second relapse in isolated CNS relapse patients (Table 3). Of 64 CNS relapses, 39 (61%) had a second relapse, of which 28 (72%) were also isolated CNS, with no difference by treatment arm. Of the 191 remaining patients, 35 (18%) had a second relapse [13 (14%) blinatumomab (6 BM±EM, 7 IEM), 22 (23%) chemotherapy (15 BM±EM, 7 IEM)]. Blinatumomab cycle 1 was better tolerated than Block 3 chemotherapy, with lower rates of CTCAEv4 grade ≥3 febrile neutropenia (3% vs. 47%, p<0.001), infections (5% vs. 51%, p<0.001), anemia (12% vs. 57%, p<0.001) and mucositis (1% vs. 7%, p=0.018). The rate of selected blinatumomab-related adverse events (AEs) in blinatumomab cycles 1/2/3 (all grades) were: Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) 12%/7%/7%, seizure 3%/1%/3%; other neurotoxicity (e.g., cognitive disturbance, tremor, ataxia, dysarthria) 19%/9%/5%. All blinatumomab-related AEs were fully reversible. In conclusion, for children and AYA patients with LR first relapse of B-ALL, while there was no significant difference in outcome for the entire population, the blinatumomab arm was superior to the standard chemotherapy arm for patients with BM±EM relapse, establishing this regimen as a new standard therapy for these patients. The blinatumomab arm was not superior in IEM relapse. Isolated CNS relapse patients had a strikingly high relapse rate on both arms; better treatments are urgently needed for this subset. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Brown: Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kura: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; KIte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Borowitz: Amgen, Blueprint Medicines: Honoraria. Raetz: Pfizer: Research Funding; Celgene: Other: DSMB member. Gore: Amgen: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kura Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Mirati: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; OnKure: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy; Sanofi Paris: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Whitlock: Amgen; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; Novartis: Research Funding; Sobi Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Hunger: Amgen: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Loh: MediSix therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. OffLabel Disclosure: Blinatumomab, used as post-reinduction consolidation without regard to MRD
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".