Cladribine and cytarabine in refractory multisystem Langerhans cell histiocytosis: results of an international phase 2 study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An international phase 2 study combining cladribine and cytarabine (Ara-C) was initiated for patients with refractory, risk-organ-positive Langerhans cell histiocytosis (LCH) in 2005. The protocol, comprising at least two 5-day courses of Ara-C (1 g/m(2) per day) plus cladribine (9 mg/m(2) per day) followed by maintenance therapy, was administered to 27 patients (median age at diagnosis, 0.7 years; median follow-up, 5.3 years). At inclusion, all patients were refractory after at least 1 course of vinblastine (VBL) plus corticosteroid, all had liver and spleen involvement, and 25 patients had hematologic cytopenia. After 2 courses, disease status was nonactive (n = 2), better (n = 23), or stable (n = 2), with an overall response rate of 92%. Median disease activity scores decreased from 12 at the start of therapy to 3 after 2 courses (P < .0001). During maintenance therapy, 4 patients experienced reactivation in risk organs. There were 4 deaths; 2 were related to therapy toxicity and 2 were related to reactivation. All patients experienced severe toxicity, with World Health Organization grade 4 hematologic toxicity and 6 documented severe infections. The overall 5-year survival rate was 85% (95% confidence interval, 65.2%-94.2%). Thus, the combination of cladribine/Ara-C is effective therapy for refractory multisystem LCH but is associated with high toxicity.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".