Sex‐based disparities in outcome in pediatric acute lymphoblastic leukemia: a Children’s Oncology Group report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Boys with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) have historically experienced inferior survival compared to girls. This study determined whether sex-based disparities persist with contemporary therapy and whether patterns of treatment failure vary by sex. METHODS: Patients 1 to 30.99 years old were enrolled on frontline Children's Oncology Group trials between 2004 and 2014. Boys received an additional year of maintenance therapy. Sex-based differences in the distribution of various prognosticators, event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS), and subcategories of relapse by site were explored. RESULTS: A total of 8202 (54.4% male) B-cell ALL (B-ALL) and 1562 (74.3% male) T-cell ALL (T-ALL) patients were included. There was no sex-based difference in central nervous system (CNS) status. Boys experienced inferior 5-year EFS and OS (EFS, 84.6% ± 0.5% vs 86.0% ± 0.6%, P = .009; OS, 91.3% ± 0.4% vs 92.5% ± 0.4%, P = .02). This was attributable to boys with B-ALL, who experienced inferior EFS (hazard ratio [HR], 1.2; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.1-1.3; P = .004) and OS (HR, 1.2; 95% CI, 1.0-1.4; P = .046) after adjustment for prognosticators. Inferior B-ALL outcomes in boys were attributable to more relapses (5-year cumulative incidence 11.2% ± 0.5% vs 9.6% ± 0.5%; P = .001), particularly involving the CNS (4.2% ± 0.3% vs 2.5% ± 0.3%; P < .0001). There was no difference in isolated bone marrow relapses (5.4% ± 0.4% vs 6.2% ± 0.4%; P = .49). There were no sex-based differences in EFS or OS in T-ALL. CONCLUSIONS: Sex-based disparities in ALL persist, attributable to increased CNS relapses in boys with B-ALL. Studies of potential mechanisms are warranted. Improved strategies to identify and modify treatment for patients at highest risk of CNS relapse may have particular benefit for boys.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".