MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Outcomes of intensive and nonintensive blast-reduction strategies in accelerated and blast-phase MPN

2024· article· en· W4390572101 on OpenAlexafffund
Marta Davidson, James A. Kennedy, José‐Mario Capo‐Chichi, Yuliang Shi, Wei Xu, Verna Cheung, Andrea Arruda, Aniket Bankar, Guillaume Richard‐Carpentier, Steven M. Chan, Dawn Maze, Mark D. Minden, Aaron D. Schimmer, Andre C. Schuh, Hassan Sibai, Karen Yee, Anne Tierens, Auro Viswabandya, Vikas Gupta

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood Advances · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMyeloproliferative Neoplasms: Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science CentrePrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
FundersAstellas PharmaLeukemia and Lymphoma Society of CanadaCelgeneSierra OncologyLeukemia and Lymphoma SocietyPrincess Margaret Cancer FoundationAmgenPfizerBristol-Myers Squibb
KeywordsMedicineCytarabineInternal medicineDaunorubicinGastroenterologyMyeloid leukemiaConfidence intervalRetrospective cohort studyOdds ratioMyeloidHypomethylating agentOncologyLeukemiaBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT: Transformation of BCR::ABL1-negative myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN) to an accelerated or blast phase is associated with poor outcomes. The efficacy of acute myeloid leukemia (AML)-type intensive and nonintensive hypomethylating agent-based regimens is not well studied. We therefore performed a retrospective analysis of patients with MPN-AP/BP (N = 138) treated with intensive (N = 81) and nonintensive (N = 57) blast-reduction strategies. We used clinically relatable response criteria developed at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre. The overall best response, comprising complete remission (CR), complete remission with incomplete hematologic recovery (CRi), and reversion to chronic phase MPN (cMPN), in the intensive and nonintensive groups was 77% (62 of 81) and 39% (21 of 54), respectively. Similar overall best response rates were observed in patients receiving induction with daunorubicin combined with cytarabine arabinoside (daunorubicin + ara-C) (74% [23 of 31]) or FLAG-IDA/NOVE-HiDAC (78% [39 of 50], P = .78). However, patients receiving daunorubicin + ara-C more often required second inductions (29% [9 of 31] vs 4% [2 of 50], P = .002). Most responses in the entire cohort were reversions to cMPN (55 of 83 [66%]). CR and CRi comprised 30% (25 of 83) and 4% (3 of 83) of responses, respectively. Mutations in TP53 (overall response [OR] 8.2 [95% confidence interval [CI] 2.01, 37.1], P = .004) and RAS pathway (OR 5.1 [95%CI 1.2, 23.7], P = .03) were associated with inferior treatment response for intensively treated patients, and poorer performance status (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group) was associated with inferior treatment response in both intensively (OR 10.4 [95% CI 2.0, 78.5], P = .009) and nonintensively treated groups (OR 12 [95% CI 2.04, 230.3], P = .02). In patients with paired samples before and after therapy (N = 26), there was a significant residual mutation burden remaining irrespective of response to blast-reduction therapy.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.288
Threshold uncertainty score0.543

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.322 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations14
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood AdvancesSame topicMyeloproliferative Neoplasms: Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207