Allogeneic Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation for Children With Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia: Shifting Indications in the Era of Immunotherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pediatric acute lymphoblastic leukemia generally carries a good prognosis, and most children will be cured and become long-term survivors. However, a portion of children will harbor high-risk features at the time of diagnosis, have a poor response to upfront therapy, or suffer relapse necessitating more intensive therapy, which may include allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT). Recent advances in risk stratification, improved detection and incorporation of minimal residual disease (MRD), and intensification of upfront treatment have changed the indications for HSCT over time. For children in first complete remission, HSCT is generally reserved for those with the highest risk of relapse. These include patients with unfavorable features/cytogenetics who also have a poor response to induction and consolidation chemotherapy, usually reflected by residual blasts after prednisone or by detectable MRD at pre-defined time points. In the relapsed setting, children with first relapse of B-cell ALL are further stratified for HSCT depending on the time and site of relapse, while all patients with T-cell ALL are generally consolidated with HSCT. Alternatives to HSCT have also emerged over the last decade including immunotherapy and chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy. These novel agents may spare toxicity while attempting to achieve MRD-negative remission in the most refractory cases and serve as a bridge to HSCT. In some situations, these emerging therapies can indeed be curative for some children with relapsed or resistant disease, thus, obviating the need for HSCT. In this review, we seek to summarize the role of HSCT in the current era of immunotherapy.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".