Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W34295218> ?p ?o ?g. }
- W34295218 endingPage "355" @default.
- W34295218 startingPage "355" @default.
- W34295218 abstract "![Graphic][1] Background Escalation of treatment intensity for childhood acute myeloid leukemia has improved EFS but with excessive toxicity and toxic mortality (TM), compelling a search for more targeted less toxic alternatives.Objective To determine if the addition of GO to standard chemotherapy improves EFS in pediatric AML.Methods Patients < 30 years of age were randomly assigned to receive standard therapy alone (noGO) or to receive two doses of GO 3 mg/m2/dose on day 6 of Induction I (IndI) and on day 7 of Intensification II (IntII) in a 5 cycle chemotherapy backbone previously piloted by COG (Cooper et al, Cancer 2012). Use of stem cell transplant (SCT) was stratified by overall risk group assignment (based on cytogenetics, FLT3-ITD high allelic ratio (HAR), and IndI response) in which high risk patients were allocated to best allogeneic donor SCT after Int I, low risk (LR) patients received chemotherapy only, and intermediate risk (IR) were assigned to SCT if there was a matched family donor (MFD).Results Between 2006-2010, 1022 of 1070 enrolled non-DS pts were eligible for analysis; characteristics are presented in [Table 1][2]. Median follow-up was 3.6 (range 0-6.4) years for those alive.View this table:Table 1 Characteristics of randomized patientsProtocol therapy was well tolerated with a TM of 2% in induction and 5% overall with no difference by study arm. VOD was observed in 3% (severe in 0.6%) with no difference by study arm. From time of enrollment, GO was significantly associated with better overall EFS (hazard ratio (HzR) 0.83 (95% CI: 0.7-0.99; p=.04) and relapse-free survival (HzR 0.74 (0.6-0.93; p=.01)) whereas OS was not significantly improved (HzR 0.91 (0.74-1.13)). At 3 yr, noGO v GO EFS was 47 v 53%, p=.05 and OS was 65 v 69%, p=.18. In multivariate analyses, GO was significantly associated with improved EFS than standard therapy after adjustment for significant adverse risk factors: age 100,000x109/L, and black race. GO was not associated with significantly better induction complete remission (CR) when compared to standard therapy (88% v 85%; p=NS). [Table 2][3] illustrates the overall results by randomized arm and by overall risk group from time of CR showing a consistent reduction in relapse risk in all risk groups. Further risk group analysis found several unique results. In the LR group, relapse rates (RR) trended lower in the GO arm but the benefit was reduced by TM during Int 2 & 3 that was significantly worse in the GO arm (3 v 10%, p=.02). In the IR group, EFS, RR, and OS trended towards improvement with GO. However when pts were censored at the time of SCT (as treated), the outcomes were not significantly different between arms (log-rank p=.14 EFS and p=.81 OS). [Table 1][2] shows an imbalance for SCT received in assigned IR pts with fewer actually receiving SCT in the noGO arm. As such, [Table 2][3] shows outcomes by intent-to-treat for IR pts with MFD censored and by as treated for IR pts receiving MFD SCT. Noteworthy in the IR group alone who did receive a SCT, GO arm pts had a significantly better DFS than the noGO arm (intent to treat: p=.022; as treated: p=.044). However, for the IR pts randomized to the noGO arm, SCT failed to provide benefit. For HR pts achieving CR they as well trended towards better survival & RR in the GO arm.View this table:Table 2 Outcomes by randomized treatment assignment following CRConclusion GO improves EFS in children, adolescents and young adults with AML by reducing the risk of relapse among those achieving remission.Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare. [1]: /embed/inline-graphic-2.gif [2]: #T1 [3]: #T2" @default.
- W34295218 created "2016-06-24" @default.
- W34295218 creator A5008703987 @default.
- W34295218 creator A5012776569 @default.
- W34295218 creator A5020000300 @default.
- W34295218 creator A5021003209 @default.
- W34295218 creator A5028145044 @default.
- W34295218 creator A5031290819 @default.
- W34295218 creator A5035790918 @default.
- W34295218 creator A5037359116 @default.
- W34295218 creator A5048708937 @default.
- W34295218 creator A5049490094 @default.
- W34295218 creator A5053592964 @default.
- W34295218 creator A5060816563 @default.
- W34295218 creator A5066419272 @default.
- W34295218 creator A5066861312 @default.
- W34295218 creator A5073322914 @default.
- W34295218 creator A5086900250 @default.
- W34295218 date "2013-11-15" @default.
- W34295218 modified "2023-10-04" @default.
- W34295218 title "Gemtuzumab Ozogamicin (GO) In Children With De Novo Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML) Improves Event-Free Survival (EFS) By Reducing Relapse Risk – Results From The Randomized Phase III Children’s Oncology Group (COG) Trial, AAML0531" @default.
- W34295218 doi "https://doi.org/10.1182/blood.v122.21.355.355" @default.
- W34295218 hasPublicationYear "2013" @default.
- W34295218 type Work @default.
- W34295218 sameAs 34295218 @default.
- W34295218 citedByCount "1" @default.
- W34295218 countsByYear W342952182016 @default.
- W34295218 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
- W34295218 hasAuthorship W34295218A5008703987 @default.
- W34295218 hasAuthorship W34295218A5012776569 @default.
- W34295218 hasAuthorship W34295218A5020000300 @default.
- W34295218 hasAuthorship W34295218A5021003209 @default.
- W34295218 hasAuthorship W34295218A5028145044 @default.
- W34295218 hasAuthorship W34295218A5031290819 @default.
- W34295218 hasAuthorship W34295218A5035790918 @default.
- W34295218 hasAuthorship W34295218A5037359116 @default.
- W34295218 hasAuthorship W34295218A5048708937 @default.
- W34295218 hasAuthorship W34295218A5049490094 @default.
- W34295218 hasAuthorship W34295218A5053592964 @default.
- W34295218 hasAuthorship W34295218A5060816563 @default.
- W34295218 hasAuthorship W34295218A5066419272 @default.
- W34295218 hasAuthorship W34295218A5066861312 @default.
- W34295218 hasAuthorship W34295218A5073322914 @default.
- W34295218 hasAuthorship W34295218A5086900250 @default.
- W34295218 hasConcept C10205521 @default.
- W34295218 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
- W34295218 hasConcept C141071460 @default.
- W34295218 hasConcept C143998085 @default.
- W34295218 hasConcept C168563851 @default.
- W34295218 hasConcept C176290653 @default.
- W34295218 hasConcept C2776611710 @default.
- W34295218 hasConcept C2776694085 @default.
- W34295218 hasConcept C2778336483 @default.
- W34295218 hasConcept C2778461978 @default.
- W34295218 hasConcept C2778623314 @default.
- W34295218 hasConcept C2778729363 @default.
- W34295218 hasConcept C28328180 @default.
- W34295218 hasConcept C54355233 @default.
- W34295218 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
- W34295218 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
- W34295218 hasConceptScore W34295218C10205521 @default.
- W34295218 hasConceptScore W34295218C126322002 @default.
- W34295218 hasConceptScore W34295218C141071460 @default.
- W34295218 hasConceptScore W34295218C143998085 @default.
- W34295218 hasConceptScore W34295218C168563851 @default.
- W34295218 hasConceptScore W34295218C176290653 @default.
- W34295218 hasConceptScore W34295218C2776611710 @default.
- W34295218 hasConceptScore W34295218C2776694085 @default.
- W34295218 hasConceptScore W34295218C2778336483 @default.
- W34295218 hasConceptScore W34295218C2778461978 @default.
- W34295218 hasConceptScore W34295218C2778623314 @default.
- W34295218 hasConceptScore W34295218C2778729363 @default.
- W34295218 hasConceptScore W34295218C28328180 @default.
- W34295218 hasConceptScore W34295218C54355233 @default.
- W34295218 hasConceptScore W34295218C71924100 @default.
- W34295218 hasConceptScore W34295218C86803240 @default.
- W34295218 hasIssue "21" @default.
- W34295218 hasLocation W342952181 @default.
- W34295218 hasOpenAccess W34295218 @default.
- W34295218 hasPrimaryLocation W342952181 @default.
- W34295218 hasRelatedWork W1828155201 @default.
- W34295218 hasRelatedWork W1940598690 @default.
- W34295218 hasRelatedWork W2025338891 @default.
- W34295218 hasRelatedWork W2075902150 @default.
- W34295218 hasRelatedWork W2127568389 @default.
- W34295218 hasRelatedWork W2137881702 @default.
- W34295218 hasRelatedWork W2153310476 @default.
- W34295218 hasRelatedWork W2259807331 @default.
- W34295218 hasRelatedWork W2470691799 @default.
- W34295218 hasRelatedWork W2556627884 @default.
- W34295218 hasRelatedWork W2570275613 @default.
- W34295218 hasRelatedWork W2582619882 @default.
- W34295218 hasRelatedWork W2593294511 @default.
- W34295218 hasRelatedWork W2602588549 @default.
- W34295218 hasRelatedWork W2751419924 @default.
- W34295218 hasRelatedWork W2785231071 @default.
- W34295218 hasRelatedWork W2912479306 @default.
- W34295218 hasRelatedWork W292640237 @default.
!["![Graphic][1] Background Escalation of treatment intensity for childhood acute myeloid leukemia has improved EFS but with excessive toxicity and toxic mortality (TM), compelling a search for more targeted less toxic alternatives.Objective To determine if the addition of GO to standard chemotherapy improves EFS in pediatric AML.Methods Patients < 30 years of age were randomly assigned to receive standard therapy alone (noGO) or to receive two doses of GO 3 mg/m2/dose on day 6 of Induction I (IndI) and on day 7 of Intensification II (IntII) in a 5 cycle chemotherapy backbone previously piloted by COG (Cooper et al, Cancer 2012). Use of stem cell transplant (SCT) was stratified by overall risk group assignment (based on cytogenetics, FLT3-ITD high allelic ratio (HAR), and IndI response) in which high risk patients were allocated to best allogeneic donor SCT after Int I, low risk (LR) patients received chemotherapy only, and intermediate risk (IR) were assigned to SCT if there was a matched family donor (MFD).Results Between 2006-2010, 1022 of 1070 enrolled non-DS pts were eligible for analysis; characteristics are presented in [Table 1][2]. Median follow-up was 3.6 (range 0-6.4) years for those alive.View this table:Table 1 Characteristics of randomized patientsProtocol therapy was well tolerated with a TM of 2% in induction and 5% overall with no difference by study arm. VOD was observed in 3% (severe in 0.6%) with no difference by study arm. From time of enrollment, GO was significantly associated with better overall EFS (hazard ratio (HzR) 0.83 (95% CI: 0.7-0.99; p=.04) and relapse-free survival (HzR 0.74 (0.6-0.93; p=.01)) whereas OS was not significantly improved (HzR 0.91 (0.74-1.13)). At 3 yr, noGO v GO EFS was 47 v 53%, p=.05 and OS was 65 v 69%, p=.18. In multivariate analyses, GO was significantly associated with improved EFS than standard therapy after adjustment for significant adverse risk factors: age 100,000x109/L, and black race. GO was not associated with significantly better induction complete remission (CR) when compared to standard therapy (88% v 85%; p=NS). [Table 2][3] illustrates the overall results by randomized arm and by overall risk group from time of CR showing a consistent reduction in relapse risk in all risk groups. Further risk group analysis found several unique results. In the LR group, relapse rates (RR) trended lower in the GO arm but the benefit was reduced by TM during Int 2 & 3 that was significantly worse in the GO arm (3 v 10%, p=.02). In the IR group, EFS, RR, and OS trended towards improvement with GO. However when pts were censored at the time of SCT (as treated), the outcomes were not significantly different between arms (log-rank p=.14 EFS and p=.81 OS). [Table 1][2] shows an imbalance for SCT received in assigned IR pts with fewer actually receiving SCT in the noGO arm. As such, [Table 2][3] shows outcomes by intent-to-treat for IR pts with MFD censored and by as treated for IR pts receiving MFD SCT. Noteworthy in the IR group alone who did receive a SCT, GO arm pts had a significantly better DFS than the noGO arm (intent to treat: p=.022; as treated: p=.044). However, for the IR pts randomized to the noGO arm, SCT failed to provide benefit. For HR pts achieving CR they as well trended towards better survival & RR in the GO arm.View this table:Table 2 Outcomes by randomized treatment assignment following CRConclusion GO improves EFS in children, adolescents and young adults with AML by reducing the risk of relapse among those achieving remission.Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare. [1]: /embed/inline-graphic-2.gif [2]: #T1 [3]: #T2"](?object=%22!%5BGraphic%5D%5B1%5D%20Background%20Escalation%20of%20treatment%20intensity%20for%20childhood%20acute%20myeloid%20leukemia%20has%20improved%20EFS%20but%20with%20excessive%20toxicity%20and%20toxic%20mortality%20(TM)%2C%20compelling%20a%20search%20for%20more%20targeted%20less%20toxic%20alternatives.Objective%20To%20determine%20if%20the%20addition%20of%20GO%20to%20standard%20chemotherapy%20improves%20EFS%20in%20pediatric%20AML.Methods%20Patients%20%3C%2030%20years%20of%20age%20were%20randomly%20assigned%20to%20receive%20standard%20therapy%20alone%20(noGO)%20or%20to%20receive%20two%20doses%20of%20GO%203%20mg%2Fm2%2Fdose%20on%20day%206%20of%20Induction%20I%20(IndI)%20and%20on%20day%207%20of%20Intensification%20II%20(IntII)%20in%20a%205%20cycle%20chemotherapy%20backbone%20previously%20piloted%20by%20COG%20(Cooper%20et%20al%2C%20Cancer%202012).%20Use%20of%20stem%20cell%20transplant%20(SCT)%20was%20stratified%20by%20overall%20risk%20group%20assignment%20(based%20on%20cytogenetics%2C%20FLT3-ITD%20high%20allelic%20ratio%20(HAR)%2C%20and%20IndI%20response)%20in%20which%20high%20risk%20patients%20were%20allocated%20to%20best%20allogeneic%20donor%20SCT%20after%20Int%20I%2C%20low%20risk%20(LR)%20patients%20received%20chemotherapy%20only%2C%20and%20intermediate%20risk%20(IR)%20were%20assigned%20to%20SCT%20if%20there%20was%20a%20matched%20family%20donor%20(MFD).Results%20Between%202006-2010%2C%201022%20of%201070%20enrolled%20non-DS%20pts%20were%20eligible%20for%20analysis%3B%20characteristics%20are%20presented%20in%20%5BTable%201%5D%5B2%5D.%20Median%20follow-up%20was%203.6%20(range%200-6.4)%20years%20for%20those%20alive.View%20this%20table%3ATable%201%20Characteristics%20of%20randomized%20patientsProtocol%20therapy%20was%20well%20tolerated%20with%20a%20TM%20of%202%25%20in%20induction%20and%205%25%20overall%20with%20no%20difference%20by%20study%20arm.%20VOD%20was%20observed%20in%203%25%20(severe%20in%200.6%25)%20with%20no%20difference%20by%20study%20arm.%20From%20time%20of%20enrollment%2C%20GO%20was%20significantly%20associated%20with%20better%20overall%20EFS%20(hazard%20ratio%20(HzR)%200.83%20(95%25%20CI%3A%200.7-0.99%3B%20p%3D.04)%20and%20relapse-free%20survival%20(HzR%200.74%20(0.6-0.93%3B%20p%3D.01))%20whereas%20OS%20was%20not%20significantly%20improved%20(HzR%200.91%20(0.74-1.13)).%20At%203%20yr%2C%20noGO%20v%20GO%20EFS%20was%2047%20v%2053%25%2C%20p%3D.05%20and%20OS%20was%2065%20v%2069%25%2C%20p%3D.18.%20In%20multivariate%20analyses%2C%20GO%20was%20significantly%20associated%20with%20improved%20EFS%20than%20standard%20therapy%20after%20adjustment%20for%20significant%20adverse%20risk%20factors%3A%20age%20100%2C000x109%2FL%2C%20and%20black%20race.%20GO%20was%20not%20associated%20with%20significantly%20better%20induction%20complete%20remission%20(CR)%20when%20compared%20to%20standard%20therapy%20(88%25%20v%2085%25%3B%20p%3DNS).%20%5BTable%202%5D%5B3%5D%20illustrates%20the%20overall%20results%20by%20randomized%20arm%20and%20by%20overall%20risk%20group%20from%20time%20of%20CR%20showing%20a%20consistent%20reduction%20in%20relapse%20risk%20in%20all%20risk%20groups.%20Further%20risk%20group%20analysis%20found%20several%20unique%20results.%20In%20the%20LR%20group%2C%20relapse%20rates%20(RR)%20trended%20lower%20in%20the%20GO%20arm%20but%20the%20benefit%20was%20reduced%20by%20TM%20during%20Int%202%20%26%203%20that%20was%20significantly%20worse%20in%20the%20GO%20arm%20(3%20v%2010%25%2C%20p%3D.02).%20In%20the%20IR%20group%2C%20EFS%2C%20RR%2C%20and%20OS%20trended%20towards%20improvement%20with%20GO.%20However%20when%20pts%20were%20censored%20at%20the%20time%20of%20SCT%20(as%20treated)%2C%20the%20outcomes%20were%20not%20significantly%20different%20between%20arms%20(log-rank%20p%3D.14%20EFS%20and%20p%3D.81%20OS).%20%5BTable%201%5D%5B2%5D%20shows%20an%20imbalance%20for%20SCT%20received%20in%20assigned%20IR%20pts%20with%20fewer%20actually%20receiving%20SCT%20in%20the%20noGO%20arm.%20As%20such%2C%20%5BTable%202%5D%5B3%5D%20shows%20outcomes%20by%20intent-to-treat%20for%20IR%20pts%20with%20MFD%20censored%20and%20by%20as%20treated%20for%20IR%20pts%20receiving%20MFD%20SCT.%20Noteworthy%20in%20the%20IR%20group%20alone%20who%20did%20receive%20a%20SCT%2C%20GO%20arm%20pts%20had%20a%20significantly%20better%20DFS%20than%20the%20noGO%20arm%20(intent%20to%20treat%3A%20p%3D.022%3B%20as%20treated%3A%20p%3D.044).%20However%2C%20for%20the%20IR%20pts%20randomized%20to%20the%20noGO%20arm%2C%20SCT%20failed%20to%20provide%20benefit.%20For%20HR%20pts%20achieving%20CR%20they%20as%20well%20trended%20towards%20better%20survival%20%26%20RR%20in%20the%20GO%20arm.View%20this%20table%3ATable%202%20Outcomes%20by%20randomized%20treatment%20assignment%20following%20CRConclusion%20GO%20improves%20EFS%20in%20children%2C%20adolescents%20and%20young%20adults%20with%20AML%20by%20reducing%20the%20risk%20of%20relapse%20among%20those%20achieving%20remission.Disclosures%3A%20No%20relevant%20conflicts%20of%20interest%20to%20declare.%20%5B1%5D%3A%20%2Fembed%2Finline-graphic-2.gif%20%5B2%5D%3A%20%23T1%20%5B3%5D%3A%20%23T2%22){kind=link}