Risk of progression in chronic <scp>phase‐chronic</scp> myeloid leukemia patients eligible for tyrosine kinase inhibitor discontinuation: Final analysis of the <scp>TFR‐PRO</scp> study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Disease progression to accelerated/blast phase (AP/BP) in patients with chronic phase chronic myeloid leukemia (CP-CML) after treatment discontinuation (TD) has never been systematically reported in clinical trials. However, recent reports of several such cases has raised concern. To estimate the risk of AP/BP among TD-eligible patients, we conducted TFR-PRO, a cohort retro-prospective study: 870 CP-CML patients eligible for TD formed a discontinuation cohort (505 patients) and a reference one (365 patients). The primary objective was the time adjusted rate (TAR) of progression in relation to TD. Secondary endpoints included the TAR of molecular relapse, that is, loss of major molecular response (MMR). With a median follow up of 5.5 years and 5188.2 person-years available, no events occurred in the TD cohort. One event of progression was registered 55 months after the end of TD, when the patient was contributing to the reference cohort. The TAR of progression was 0.019/100 person-years (95% CI [0.003-0.138]) in the overall group; 0.0 (95% CI [0-0.163]) in the discontinuation cohort; and 0.030 (95% CI [0.004-0.215]) in the reference cohort. These differences are not statistically significant. Molecular relapses occurred in 172/505 (34.1%) patients after TD, and in 64/365 (17.5%) patients in the reference cohort, p < .0001. Similar rates were observed in TD patients in first, second or third line of treatment. CML progression in patients eligible for TD is rare and not related to TD. Fears about the risk of disease progression among patients attempting TD should be dissipated.
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 | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".