Impact of Extramedullary Disease on the Outcomes after Allogeneic Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation in Children and Young Adults with Acute Myeloid Leukemia - a CIBMTR Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: In patients with AML, EMD can occur in the central nervous system (CNS) or other sites, in addition to bone marrow (BM) disease. Only a few retrospective studies have evaluated the impact of EMD on outcomes after alloHCT for children with AML. We hypothesized that the presence of EMD at AML diagnosis would be associated with inferior outcomes after alloHCT. Methods: The Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) database was used to compare the effect of EMD in patients with AML. Based on EMD at diagnosis, patients were grouped as BM involvement (Group I), BM+CNS involvement (Group II), and BM+other EMD±CNS (Group III). The primary outcome was 1year (y) progression-free survival (PFS) with 1y overall survival (OS), non-relapse mortality (NRM), cumulative incidence (CI) of acute and chronic graft versus host disease (GVHD), and CI of relapse as secondary endpoints. Kaplan Meier estimates were used to assess survival outcomes and groups compared using log-rank test; Cox regression was used to identify covariates associated with survival. Results: Our cohort includes 938 children (<21y; 52% male) who received first alloHCT for AML between 2008-2019. All patients were in a morphologic complete remission (CR) and confirmed to have no evidence of EMD at the time of alloHCT. Our study cohort included 630 Group I, 212 Group II and 96 Group III patients. Group III patients were younger at HCT (median age 2.9y vs 10.8y Group I, 10y Group II;), had poor-risk cytogenetics (50% vs 37% Group I, 39% Group II) and a higher pediatric disease risk index (52.1% vs 21.9% Group I, 25% Group II) and poor risk cytogenetics (50% vs 39% Group I, 37% Group II). The majority (63%) of patients had low comorbidity burden by expanded youth malignant HCT comorbidity index (score of 0-1, no difference between groups). While 67.5% of patients received chemotherapy-only conditioning, 32.1% received total body irradiation (TBI) based, and the remaining chemotherapy with low-dose TBI (4.5%) conditioning regimens. Radiation to other sites, including CNS, was reported in 6.7% of the study cohort. Donors were mostly unrelated cords (42.4%), matched unrelated (20.5%), and matched siblings (18%), with the remainder being haploidentical (6.4%) and mismatched unrelated (6.9%)Graft sources included bone marrow (39.8%), umbilical cord blood (46.4%), and peripheral blood (14.8%). GVHD prophylaxis was commonly calcineurin inhibitor-based (89%), with the remainder receiving post-transplant cyclophosphamide-based prophylaxis (6.1%) or ex vivo T cell-depleted grafts (3.2%). At a median follow of 69.8 months (range 3.4-155 months), the 1y PFS of the entire group was 67.4%. The day +100 acute GVHD, 1y NRM, relapse incidence, OS, and chronic GVHD of the entire group was 31.7%, 10.3%, 22.6%, 77%, and 29.6% respectively. Multivariable analysis of factors associated with relapse, after adjusting for disease status (includes MRD), age, and TBI use, EMD was associated with improved survival: Group II: hazard ratio (HR) of 0.697 (95% CI 0.515-0.944; p=0.012) and Group III HR of 0.695 (95% CI 0.459-1.053; p=0.087) compared to Group I cohort. There was no difference in PFS (p=0.21), NRM (p= 0.27), and OS (p=0.90) among the groups. Conclusion: Our results suggest that the presence of EMD with BM at diagnosis did not impact clinical outcomes post-alloHCT. Although this cohort describes a subset of patients with EMD - those who were able to clear EMD prior to HCT and proceed to HCT - we observed that EMD at diagnosis among those who are otherwise able to proceed to HCT does not portend worse HCT outcomes or more relapse. It is possible that, in this setting, the ability to clear EMD prior to HCT was suggestive of chemotherapy-sensitive disease.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".