What Is the Prognostic Relevance of Responses Less Than a CR(Sub-CR) to Initial AML Treatment?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Context: Achievement of CR has long been one of the goals of AML treatment. Over the years, less stringent criteria for defining CR (sub-CR) have been developed to incorporate patients in clinical trials and to facilitate regulatory approvals. In both the intensive and non-intensive up-front treatment scenarios, sub-CR responses are associated with inferior outcomes compared to those achieving true CR. However, it is not clear whether sub-CR response comprises a prognostic factor independent of the underlying disease biology. Design: Retrospective single center study Patients and methods: 363 AML patients CR or sub-CR response between Jan 2019 to Jan 2023 were included. Sub-CR responses included CRi, CRh, and MLFS per ELN 2022. Univariate and multivariable logistic regression models were conducted to assess the association between clinical variables and CR/sub-CR response. Kaplan-Meier curves were generated for EFS and OS, and differences were tested using the log-rank test. All statistical analyses were performed using the EZR software (a modified version of R commander (version 1.5.4)). Objectives: Primary objective: To identify predictors of sub-CR response. Secondary objectives: To compare EFS and OS between CR and sub-CR patients, in both overall population and AML subgroups Results: Among the 363 patients, 227 patients achieved CR, and 136 sub-CR. Sub-CR responses included CRi/h(75) and MLFS(61). By UVA, sub-CR response was associated with secondary AML(OR: 2.801(95%CI[1.70 - 4.63]); p<0.0001), adverse cytogenetics(OR: 5.008[1.36 - 18.35]; p 0.02), intermediate cytogenetics(OR: 6.5[1.92 - 22.03]; p 0.02), ELN adverse risk(OR: 5.95[3.2 - 11.1]; p<0.001), ELN intermediate risk(OR: 2.11[1.07 - 4.15]; p<0.0001), unmutated NPM1 (OR: 1.96[1.23 - 3.13]; p 0.02), MDS-related mutations(OR: 4.49[2.84 - 7.09]; p<0.0001) and non-intensive treatment (OR: 8.612[4.98 - 14.87]; p<0.001). On MVA, sub-CR responses were associated with non-intensive treatment (OR: 6.273 [3.46 - 11.35]; p<0.0001), ELN adverse risk (OR: 3.033 [1.49 - 6.18]; p 0.0073) and MDS-related mutations (OR: 2.757[1.57 - 4.83]; p 0.0004). The 24 month-EFS was inferior(p<0.0001) in patients with sub-CR (33.5% [25.2 - 41.7]) compared those with a CR (58.1% [51.1 - 64.5]). Similarly, 24-month OS was inferior in the sub-CR group (45.3% [36.3 - 53.9] (sub-CR) vs 67.5% [60.6 - 73.5] (CR); p<0.0001). This difference persisted after censoring for transplant (HSCT) (26.4% [17.6 - 36.1] (sub-CR) vs 54.6% [45.9 - 62.6] (CR); p<0.0001). The inferior OS of the sub-CR group was seen in ELN favorable (24-month OS: 56.2%(sub-CR) vs 84.3%(CR); p 0.008) and intermediate risk (24-month OS: 52.9%(sub-CR) vs 64.9%(CR); p-0.02), but not in adverse risk (24-month OS: 39.8%(sub-CR) vs 52.3%(CR); p-0.187). Inferior OS of sub-CR was observed in intensively treated patients (24-month OS:52.7%(sub-CR) vs 71.7%(CR); p-<0.0001), but not in non-intensively treated patients (24- month OS: 37.6%(sub-CR) vs 22.5%(CR); p-0.149). When MRD status was considered, we did not observe a significant difference in the 24-month OS between sub-CR and CR, whether MRD negative (24-month OS: 56.6%(sub-CR) vs 67.7%(CR); p-0.06) or positive (24-month OS: 40.3%(sub-CR) vs 62.95(CR); p-0.08). In patients who underwent HSCT, there was no significant difference in the 24-month OS between sub-CR and CR (64%(sub-CR) vs 72.4%(CR); p-0.0504) whereas a difference was noted in the non-transplanted population (31.6%(sub-CR) vs 62.5%(CR); p-<0.0001). Conclusions: We conclude that sub-CR responses in AML reflect both underlying disease biology and type of treatment administered. Sub-CR responses were more common in patients with adverse pre-treatment characteristics (ELN adverse risk and MDS-related mutations), and in non-intensively treated patients. In these subgroups, a sub-CR response did not confer inferior survival. In contrast, sub-CR response was associated with inferior survival in intensively treated patients and in favorable/intermediate risk AML. The OS effects of sub-CR response were MRD independent in our hands, and HSCT appeared to be able to overcome the negative OS impact of sub-CR status.
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 | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".