MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417001907 · doi:10.1182/blood-2025-758

Blinatumomab mitigates the impact of traditional adverse prognosticators among children with standard risk b-acute lymphoblastic leukemia: Updated results of the Children's oncology group (COG) Trial AALL1731

2025· article· en· W4417001907 on OpenAlexaff
Sumit Gupta, Rachel E. Rau, John A. Kairalla, Karen R. Rabin, Cindy Wang, Anne Angiolillo, Sarah Alexander, Andrew J. Carroll, Susan J. Conway, Lia Gore, Ilan R. Kirsch, Holly R. Kubaney, Amanda Li, Jennifer L. McNeer, Olga Militano, Tamara P. Miller, Yvonne Moyer, Maureen M. O’Brien, Maki Okada, Shalini C. Reshmi, Mary Shago, Elizabeth M. Wagner, Naomi Winick, Brent Wood, Tara Haworth-Wright, Faraz Zaman, Gerhard Zugmaier, Sue Zupanec, Meenakshi Devidas, Stephen P. Hunger, David T. Teachey, Mignon L. Loh, Elizabeth A. Raetz

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Lymphoblastic Leukemia research
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenBC Children's HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlinatumomabMinimal residual diseaseChemotherapyAcute lymphocytic leukemiaAdverse effectLeukemiaRandomized controlled trialBone marrow

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract COG study AALL1731 established that adding two cycles of the bispecific T-cell engager blinatumomab to risk-adapted chemotherapy (chemo) significantly improved 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) of children with National Cancer Institute (NCI) standard risk (SR) B-acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) at average or higher risk of relapse (Gupta et al, NEJM 2025). Longer-term follow-up is critical to ensure the benefit persists. Further work is also needed to determine prognostic features in patients (pts) whose therapy now includes blinatumomab. AALL1731 enrolled newly diagnosed NCI SR [age 1-<10 years with initial white blood cell count <50,000/µL] B-ALL pts, without BCR::ABL1 fusion, testicular or central nervous system (CNS)3 disease. After 3-drug induction, pts were risk stratified based on leukemia genetics, CNS status, day 8 blood flow cytometry-defined minimal residual disease (fcMRD), and end of induction (EOI) bone marrow (BM) fcMRD and EOI clonoSEQ assessment. Pts at average risk of relapse (SR-Avg) with detectable or indeterminate EOI BM ClonoSEQ MRD were randomized to standard chemo (Arm A) or chemo plus 2 cycles of blinatumomab (Arm B). Pts at high risk of relapse (SR-High) with end of consolidation (EOC) BM mpFC MRD <0.1% were randomized to higher intensity chemo (Arm C) or chemo plus 2 cycles of blinatumomab (Arm D). Interim analyses (June 2024) showed that addition of blinatumomab was associated with improved DFS; enrollment was terminated and Arm A/C pts not yet in Maintenance offered crossover and blinatumomab. Using current data to 6/25, we compared DFS between Arms A/C and B/D, censoring pre-Maintenance pts when crossover was offered. We also determined the effect of blinatumomab on the impact of traditional prognosticators by comparing the associated risk within Arm A/C pts vs within Arm B/D pts. Median follow-up was 3.5 years (IQR=2.5-4.3). Of 1,444 randomized pts, 133 were censored. In intent-to-treat analyses, 4-year DFS (± standard error) was 94.8±1.5% for pts randomized to blinatumomab arms (B/D) vs 86.9±2.2% control arms (A/C). Adding blinatumomab significantly improved DFS [Hazard Ratio (HR) 0.41, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.27-0.62, 1-sided p<0.0001]. The 4-year cumulative incidence of relapse (CIR) for those randomized to blinatumomab vs control arms was 4.4±0.9% vs 12.6±1.5% (p<0.0001). While BM involved relapses were significantly reduced (4-year CIR 3.1±0.8% vs. 9.4±1.3%, p<0.0001), isolated CNS relapses were unchanged (1.4±0.5% vs 2.2±0.6%, p=0.41). In Arms A/C (control) traditional variables used in COG retained adverse prognostic significance, in contrast to Arms B/D (blinatumomab). For example, in control arms, Hispanic ethnicity was associated with a two-fold increase in risk (HR 2.1, 95CI 1.3-3.4; p=0.004) while in blinatumomab arms the HR for Hispanic ethnicity was 1.3 (95CI 0.6-2.7; p=0.51). In control arm pts, EOI fcMRD≥0.01% had a 4-year DFS of 82.3±2.7% vs 89.7±1.7% for EOI fcMRD<0.01% (p=0.008). In blinatumomab arm pts however, EOI fcMRD≥0.01% 4-year DFS was 92.8±1.9% vs. 95.9±1.1% for MRD <0.01% (p=0.08). Notably, blinatumomab arm pts with EOI fcMRD ≥0.01% had superior outcomes to control arm pts with EOI fcMRD <0.01%. Dramatic impact was seen in pts with EOC BM fcMRD 0.01%-<0.1% vs EOI MRD ≥0.01% but EOC fcMRD <0.01% (control:HR 5.9, 95CI 2.5-14.0; p<0.0001; blinatumomab:HR 2.6, 95CI 0.6-11.8; p=0.21). Indeed, EOC MRD 0.01%-<0.1% pts on Arm C experienced 4-year DFS of 30.8±16.8% (N=16) vs 81.8±11.6% (N=13) on Arm D. CNS2 pts, who in previous COG trials had inferior outcomes, had 4-year DFS of 96.8±2.3% on blinatumomab arms. Unfavorable genetics [iAMP21, KMT2A rearrangement, t(17;19), hypodiploidy] retained adverse impact (Arm C: HR 3.5 vs favorable, 95CI 1.6-7.6; p=0.002; Arm D: HR 4.1, 95CI 1.1-15.2; p=0.04). However, addition of blinatumomab was still associated with improved outcomes in pts with unfavorable genetics (4-year DFS Arm C 77.1±5.9% vs Arm D 91.7±3.6%).The benefit associated with adding blinatumomab to the treatment of NCI SR B-ALL is maintained with further follow-up. While some adverse prognosticators retain significance in the context of blinatumomab-containing backbones, the addition of blinatumomab is of benefit for all examined subgroups, with most prognosticators losing significance. These results confirm this new standard therapy and have important implications for which subgroups could be considered for a reduction in traditional chemo in the future.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 designNon-randomized trial
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 venueBloodSame topicAcute Lymphoblastic Leukemia researchFrench-language works237,207