MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Sinusoidal obstruction syndrome and other outcomes in pediatric patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia who received inotuzumab ozogamicin before hematopoietic cell transplantation.

2025· article· en· W4410816315 on OpenAlexaff
Akshay Sharma, Maureen M. O’Brien, Christine L. Phillips, Kirk R. Schultz, Parinda A. Mehta, Partow Kebriaei, Erik Vandendries, Stephanie Dorman, Wei Jiang, Fan Zhang, Kofi Asomaning, Mei Jie Zhang, Marcos J.G. De Lima, David I. Marks, Wael Saber

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer therapeutics and mechanisms
Canadian institutionsPfizer (Canada)BC Children's Hospital
FundersPfizer
KeywordsMedicineLymphoblastic LeukemiaHematopoietic stem cell transplantationHematopoietic cellTransplantationOncologyAcute lymphocytic leukemiaLeukemiaInternal medicineHaematopoiesisStem cell

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

e22000 Background: Inotuzumab ozogamicin (InO) is FDA approved for adult and pediatric (≥1 y) patients (pts) with relapsed/refractory (R/R) B-cell precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). However, InO has been associated with increased risk of sinusoidal obstruction syndrome (SOS), particularly following hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT). Previously reported post-HCT SOS rates are ~20% in adults and ~20–50% in pediatric pts who received InO before HCT. Methods: This observational, post-authorization safety study used data from the CIBMTR to assess post-HCT outcomes in pts with B-cell precursor ALL who received InO prior to HCT in the US. We report outcomes in pediatric pts ( < 18 y) who received InO prior to first HCT between 18 Aug 2017 and 17 Aug 2022. Results: In all, 52 pts were included (median age 9 y; 54% male; 83% with R/R ALL). Prior to HCT, 17% were in first complete remission (CR1), 40% in CR2, and 42% in CR≥3; 52%, 42%, and 6% received 1, 2, and ≥3 InO cycles, respectively; 46% received InO as monotherapy and 35% in combination with other agents (data unavailable in 19%). After InO, 39/52 (75%) achieved CR and 9/52 (17%) achieved CR with incomplete hematologic recovery; 38/47 (81%) evaluable pts were reported as minimal residual disease negative. Median (range) time from last InO dose to HCT was 1.4 (0.6–12.5) mo. Post-HCT outcomes are shown in the table. Post-HCT relapse of ALL occurred in 21 pts, of whom 7 (33%) died within 18 mo. Of 31 pts without post-HCT relapse, 6 died in remission due to SOS (n = 2), graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), organ failure, infection, or thrombotic microangiopathy (n = 1 each). In all, 16 pts developed SOS (8 mild; 8 severe). Of these, 7 received defibrotide treatment and 7 died within 18 mo (2 with SOS as cause of death). Prophylactic defibrotide was given to 23/52 pts (7/16 with SOS). Median (range) time from HCT to SOS was 10 (6–25) d. Other adverse events occurring in ≥30% of pts 100 d post HCT were viral infection (38%) and acute grade II–IV GVHD (33%). Conclusions: The rate of SOS in this real-world cohort of pediatric pts with ALL who received InO before HCT was similar to prior pediatric clinical studies. Given the high SOS rate and mortality in pediatric pts, careful consideration and pt selection should be exercised when using InO prior to HCT. Further investigation is needed to identify SOS risk factors and strategies for mitigating this risk in pediatric pts. Post-HCT outcomes. Pediatric ptsn=52 Median (range) follow-up from HCT, mo 15.2 (3.3–50.7) 12-mo overall survival % (95% CI) 71 (56–83) 6-mo transplant-related mortality, % (95% CI) 8 (2–17) 6-mo non–transplant-related mortality % (95% CI) 8 (3–17) 6-mo relapse, % (95% CI) 24 (13–37) Continued CR, n (%) 51 (98) Pts with SOS within 100 d, n 16 100-d SOS, % (95% CI) 31 (19–44) Post-SOS mortality among all pts, n (%) 7 (13)

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)0.002
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.304 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicCancer therapeutics and mechanismsFrench-language works237,207