Real-World Treatment Patterns and Clinical Outcomes in Canadian Patients with AML Unfit for First-Line Intensive Chemotherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is a hematological malignancy that predominantly affects the elderly. Prognosis declines with age. For those who cannot tolerate intensive chemotherapy, historically established treatment options have been hypomethylating agents (HMAs), low dose cytarabine (LDAC), and best supportive care (BSC). As the standard of care evolves for those unfit for intensive chemotherapy, there is a need to understand established treatment pathways, clinical outcomes and healthcare resource utilization in Canada. The CURRENT study was a retrospective chart review of AML patients not eligible for intensive chemotherapy who initiated first-line treatment between 1 January 2015 and 31 December 2018. Data were collected from 170 Canadian patients treated at six hematology centers, of whom 118 received systemic therapy and 52 received BSC as first-line treatment. Median overall survival was 8.58 months and varied from 2.96 months for BSC to 13.31 months for HMAs. Over 80% of patients had at least one outpatient visit, and 67% of patients receiving systemic therapy and 71% of those receiving BSC had at least one admission to hospital, during their first line of therapy. A total of 96 (81.4%) patients receiving first line systemic therapy and 39 (75.0%) of those receiving first line BSC had at least one red blood cell or platelet transfusion. These findings highlight the unmet need for novel therapies for patients ineligible for intensive chemotherapy.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".