Outcomes of adults with refractory or relapsed acute myeloid leukemia treated with azacitidine and venetoclax compared to other therapies: a multicenter retrospective study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study reports characteristics and outcomes of adults who received Azacitidine-Venetoclax (AZA-VEN) compared to other salvage therapies (NO-AZA-VEN) as first salvage therapy for acute myeloid leukemia (AML). The clinical data of 81 patients with a diagnosis of relapsed or refractory AML were analyzed. The ORR was comparable for both groups (55% vs 57%, p = 0.852). Median OS (6.8 vs 11.2 months, p = 0.053) and median RFS (6.9 vs 11.2 months, p = 0.488) showed a trend in favor of the NO-AZA-VEN group. OS was significantly longer with NO-AZA-VEN for ELN 2022 risk category sub-group, patients under 60 years old, primary AML and for patients who underwent allo-hematopoietic stem cell transplant after salvage therapy. There was no statistical difference in complications of treatment such as febrile neutropenia, intensive care unit stay, septic shock and total parenteral nutrition. Those results do not support the preferential use of AZA-VEN over other regimens in R/R acute myeloid leukemia.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".