What Is the Role of HSCT in Philadelphia-Chromosome–Positive and Philadelphia-Chromosome–Like ALL in the Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor Era?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previously, the outcome of paediatric Philadelphia-chromosome–positive (Ph + ) ALL treated with conventional chemotherapy alone was poor, necessitating the use of haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) for the best outcomes. The recent addition of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) alongside the chemotherapy regimens for Ph + ALL has markedly improved outcomes, replacing the need for HSCT for lower risk patients. An additional poor prognosis group of Philadelphia-chromosome–like (Ph-like) ALL has also been identified. This group also can be targeted by TKIs in combination with chemotherapy, but the role of HSCT in this population is not clear. The impact of novel targeted immunotherapies (chimeric antigen receptor T cells and bispecific or drug-conjugated antibodies) has improved the outcome of patients, in combination with chemotherapy, and made the role of HSCT as the optimal curative therapy for Ph + ALL and Ph-like ALL less clear. The prognosis of patients with Ph + ALL and persistent minimal residual disease (MRD) at the end of consolidation despite TKI therapy or with additional genetic risk factors remains inferior when HSCT is not used. For such high-risk patients, HSCT using total-body-irradiation–containing conditioning is currently recommended. This review aims to provide an update on the current and future role of HSCT for Ph + ALL and addresses key questions related to the management of these patients, including the role of HSCT in first complete remission, MRD evaluation and related actions post HSCT, TKI usage post HSCT, and the putative role of HSCT in Ph-like ALL.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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".