Real-World Experience With CPX-351 Treatment for Acute Myeloid Leukemia in England: An Analysis From the National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background CPX-351 demonstrated improved overall survival (OS) versus conventional 3+7 daunorubicin/cytarabine chemotherapy in a registrational phase 3 study in older patients with newly diagnosed, high-risk secondary acute myeloid leukaemia (AML). This retrospective, population-based cohort study aimed to describe and compare the characteristics and survival outcomes of younger (<60 years) versus older (≥60 years) patients with AML treated with CPX-351 in England. Patients and Methods The study included adults aged ≥18 years diagnosed with AML in England between January 2013 and March 2022, and treated with CPX-351 in routine clinical practice (patients who received CPX-351 in a clinical trial were excluded) . Patient records were sourced from the population-level Cancer Analysis System database available through the National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service. Results Of 353 included patients, 104 (29.5%) were <60 years. With a median follow-up of 10.9 months from diagnosis, the estimated median OS was 12.9 months overall, 17.3 months for adults <60 years and 11.7 months for those ≥60 years. All-cause mortality by Day 30 from diagnosis was 6% overall, 4% for adults <60 years and 6% for those ≥60 years. Haematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) was received by 54% of adults <60 years and 38% of those ≥60 years after CPX-351, with median OS landmarked from the HCT date not yet reached for either age subgroup. Conclusion This study provides real-world survival outcomes data suggesting that CPX-351 is an effective treatment for both younger (<60 years) and older (≥60 years) adults with AML. Micro Abstract This retrospective study included 353 patients with AML treated with CPX-351 in England. At median 10.9 months from diagnosis, median overall survival was 12.9 months and Day 30 all-cause mortality was 6% (17.3 vs 11.7 months and 4% vs 6%, respectively, for <60 vs ≥60 years). The study provides real-world evidence of the effectiveness of CPX-351 for AML, irrespective of age.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".