MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4389220704 · doi:10.1182/blood-2023-185951

Real World Experience of FLT3-Inhibitor Post-Transplant Maintenance with Sorafenib Demonstrating Superior Overall- and Relapse Free Survival Following Allogeneic Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation in FLT3-ITD Mutated Acute Myeloid Leukemia

2023· article· en· W4389220704 on OpenAlexaff
Yomna Eissa, Eshrak Al‐Shaibani, Igor Novitzky‐Basso, Ivan Pašić, Wilson Lam, José‐Mario Capo‐Chichi, Arjun Law, Fotios V. Michelis, Auro Viswabandya, Armin Gerbitz, Rajat Kumar, Jonas Mattsson, Dennis Dong Hwan Kim

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Myeloid Leukemia Research
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSorafenibMedicineOncologyInternal medicineTolerabilityTransplantationClinical endpointMaintenance therapyHematopoietic stem cell transplantationFms-Like Tyrosine Kinase 3Clinical trialAdverse effectChemotherapyHepatocellular carcinomaBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) with FLT3-internal tandem duplication (ITD) is known to have a significantly high risk of relapse even with allogeneic stem cell transplantation (HCT), for which post-transplant maintenance therapy with FLT3 inhibitors (FLT3i) has been applied. Although there is a randomized trial comparing Sorafenib maintenance vs no treatment, real world experience is still limited. Despite the increased use of FTL3i maintenance in clinical practice, the optimal dose and duration of post-transplant Sorafenib maintenance remains uncertain. Accordingly, we performed a retrospective chart review to analyze the survival benefit with Sorafenib maintenance, dose tolerability and the impact of FLT3-ITD allele frequency (AF) at initial diagnosis of AML on treatment outcomes in the context of post-HCT Sorafenib maintenance. Patients and method We conducted a retrospective study including 69 patients who received an allogeneic HCT from 2019 to 2023 for AML with FLT3-ITD, of which 24 patients received Sorafenib as post-HCT maintenance therapy. Primary endpoint was relapse-free survival (RFS). The use of Sorafenib maintenance treatment was treated as a time-dependent covariate and Mantel-Byar test (MBT) was conducted to compare outcomes between Sorafenib maintenance group vs others, which will avoid immortal bias. FLT3-ITD allele frequency (AF) was assessed by molecular PCR test, and the cutoff was determined using a binary recursive partitioning method with AF of 54.6% as a cutoff. Results Out of 69 patients, 61 (88%) were in CR1 vs 8 (12%) in CR2 prior to HCT. Sorafenib was started in 24 patients (35%) at a median of 95 days post-HCT with a dose of 200mg every other day (n=2), 200mg once daily (n=17) or 200mg twice daily (n=5). The most common maintenance dose was 200mg once daily (n=9), followed by 200mg twice daily (n=6), 200mg every other day (n=5), and 400mg twice daily (n=1). The median Sorafenib maintenance duration was 15 months (1-53 months) at the last follow-up. There were no relapses in the patients who completed 2 years of Sorafenib maintenance. Sorafenib was discontinued in 6 patients, due to relapse (n=2), death of unrelated cause (n=1), GVHD (n=1), pneumonitis (n=1) and recurrent hypoglycemia (n=1). Adverse events requiring Sorafenib dose reduction included, GI intolerance (n=7), skin rash (n=7), thrombocytopenia (n=4), transaminitis (n=3), neuropathy (n=3), GVHD (n=2) and pneumonitis (n=2). The median follow-up duration for all the patients was 27 months (5-51) following HCT, or 13 months (1.3-48) following Sorafenib maintenance. Using Kaplan-Meier test, the 2-year RFS in patients on Sorafenib maintenance was 84.5% vs 40.5% for no Sorafenib (p=0.00049). The 2-year OS was 88.2% vs 53.9% (p=0.0043), respectively. The CIR was 9.8% vs 39.9% (p=0.00634), while the NRM was 5.6% vs 19.7% (p =0.122), respectively. In the MBT, Sorafenib maintenance was found to reduce the mortality risk by 62.5% (HR 0.375 (0.109-1.29], p=0.120) and reduced the relapse/mortality risk by 71.2% (HR 0.288 [0.084-0.984], p=0.047). With respect to FLT3-ITD AF, the group with higher AF showed extremely higher HR for RFS compared to those with lower FLT-ITD (HR 29.37 [3.007-286.8], p=0.0036). When evaluating RFS and OS with combined risk incorporating the use of Sorafenib and FLT3-ITD AF, we have 4 subgroups (figure 1). In patients with a lower AF, the RFS was 87.7% vs 56.8% in the Sorafenib (n=20), vs no Sorafenib group (n=31), respectively. In patients with a higher AF, the RFS was 66.7% vs 0.0% in the Sorafenib (n=3), vs no Sorafenib group (n=8; p=0.0009), respectively. In a multivariate analysis, we confirmed the 2-year RFS for patients who had a high FLT3-ITD and received Sorafenib maintenance was statistically significant when compared to no Sorafenib maintenance. Conclusion Sorafenib maintenance post-transplant in FLT3-ITD mutated AML patients significantly improves the OS and RFS. Sorafenib maintenance is tolerable with 200mg twice daily or lower in most patients. Reduced doses of Sorafenib improve tolerability, with no significant impact on increased risk of relapse. Higher AF group of FLT3-ITD at initial diagnosis defined by ≥54.6% using PCR, was associated with significantly increased risk of relapse even after HCT. Sorafenib maintenance seems to provide survival benefit in terms of RFS, particularly in the patients with higher AF FLT3-ITD.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.240 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood→Same topicAcute Myeloid Leukemia Research→French-language works237,207→