Minimal Residual Disease Assessment May Drive Post Remission Therapy in Acute Myeloid Leukemia. It's Time for MRD-Driven Therapy

Abstract Introduction With standard intensive induction regimens, up to 80% of Acute Myeloid leukemia (AML) patients can achieve complete remission (CR). Several evidences demonstrated that the persistence of detectable disease (MRD) assessed with highly sensitive techniques such as Multicolor-Flow-Cytometry (MFC) and PCR based molecular analysis, retains a prognostic value among patients achieving morphological remission (Walter RB, 2015; Araki D et al, 2016, Zhou Y et al, 2016). The aim of the present study was to retrospectively evaluate the prognostic impact of MRD in a cohort of uniformly treated AML patients. One hundred and ten consecutive AML patients who had been treated in our center between January 2004 and December 2014 were retrospectively analyzed. All patients had received a fludarabine-containing induction (FLAI-5) and received second cycle and further consolidation therapy according to our published strategy (Guolo F, 2016). Median age was 47 years (range 17-61). Median follow up was 59 months. Patients features are summarized in Table I. MRD assessment was performed through 4-colour MFC analysis (MFC-MRD)and through WT1-gene expression analysis, as previously described (Guolo F, 2016). Three different MRD time-points (TP)were considered: TP1, after induction I; TP2, after induction II; TP3, after consolidation therapy for patients who did not undergo HSCT and at HSCT for patients who underwent HSCT. Relapse-free survival (RFS) was calculated from the time of diagnosis until last follow-up or documented leukemic relapse. CR rate after 1st and 2ndinduction was 82.7 and 85.5%, respectively, whereas 30 and 60 days mortality was 6.4% and 8.2%, respectively. Overall, patients showed MRD reduction from TP1 to TP2. Detailed MRD negativity rates are provided in table II. MRD clearance probability was significantly influenced only by ELN risk group and Karyotype (p <0.05 for both). In the whole cohort, 2 years RFS was 62.4% (median not reached). RFS duration was significantly influenced by secondary disease (p <0.001), NPM mutation (p <0.05), ELN risk group (p <0.001), WT1 expression level at diagnosis (p<0.03) and MFC MRD positivity, at any time-point with both <0.025% and <0.1% as cut-off for positivity (p<0.03 and 0.05, respectively, for MRD TP1 and p<0.05 and <0.005, respectively, for MRD TP2, Figure 1), WT1 MRD at TP1 (p<0.05). Multivariate Cox-Proportional Hazard model showed that MFC MRD <0.1% at TP2 was the strongest predictor of DFS. Overall survival (OS) analysis led to similar results. However, at TP1, when performing MFC-MRD evaluation with a "Leukemia-associated immunophenotype" (LAP) approach, the choice of the deeper 0.025% cut-off for positivity identified patients at lower risk of relapse (2-year RFS of 88.9%) whereas patients with MFC MRD >0.1% had an high probability of relapse, with a 2-year RFS of only 21.5%. Moreover, the combination of MFC and WT1- MRD assessment identified three subgroups of patients with significantly different outcome (2-years OS 100, 64.4 and 46.7%, respectively, for MFC-neg/WT1 neg, MFC-pos/WT1 neg, MFC-pos/WT1 pos), as we previously described (Marani C, 2013). Consolidation chemotherapy with High Dose Ara-C was able to improve prognosis and increase MRD TP3 negativity rate only in patients not scheduled for HSCT in 1st CR and only if at least 2cycles were administered. The positive impact was higher if MFC MRD at TP2 was <0.1%. Conclusions Our data clearly show that the quantification of MFC-MRD assessment at different time-points during treatment retains a strong prognostic impact in AML and can improve patients-risk stratification. In our experience the established threshold of 0.1% to define MFC negativity is confirmed as the most useful in post induction program setting. However, performing a MFC-MRD evaluation with LAP approach, choosing a deeper cut-off value can discriminate patients with a significantly lower risk of relapse. Prospective randomized trials evaluating the prognostic impact of MRD-driven therapeutic decisions are strongly needed. Disclosures Gobbi: Takeda: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy; Roche: Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Download Full-text

Hypomethylating Agent and Venetoclax Combination Yields Comparable Outcomes to CPX-351 in Newly Diagnosed Acute Myeloid Leukemia

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2019-130379 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. 3895-3895

Author(s):

Hannah Asghari ◽

Dasom Lee ◽

Yehuda E. Deutsch ◽

Onyee Chan ◽

Najla Al Ali ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Acute Myeloid Leukemia ◽

Complete Remission ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Myeloid Leukemia ◽

Research Funding ◽

Risk Group ◽

Newly Diagnosed ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Acute Myeloid

Background The therapeutic landscape for acute myeloid leukemia (AML) has become complex with recent drug approvals. CPX-351 has become standard-of-care for patients (pts) with therapy-related AML and AML with myelodysplasia-related changes. Moreover, earlier phase studies combining hypomethylating agents (HMA) and Venetoclax (HMA+Ven) in the frontline setting for elderly patients have demonstrated high response rates and improved survival. Given the overlapping indications, yet lack of comparative outcome data between these therapeutic regimens, treatment decisions have become challenging in the frontline setting. Therefore, we compared the outcomes of newly diagnosed AML pts receiving HMA+Ven vs. CPX-351. Methods We retrospectively annotated 119 pts that received frontline treatment with HMA+Ven and CPX-351 at Moffitt Cancer Center and Memorial Healthcare System between 2013 and 2019. Pts were divided in two cohorts: HMA+Ven (Cohort A) or CPX-351(Cohort B). Via comprehensive chart review of each patient that received HMA+Ven, we further classified a subgroup of pts meeting criteria to receive CPX-351 as CPX-351eligible. Clinical and molecular data were abstracted for each patient in accordance with IRB requirements. Overall response rate (ORR) was the combined total of complete remission (CR), complete remission with incomplete count recovery (CRi), and morphologic leukemia free state (MLFS). Fisher's Exact method was used to determine significance. Kaplan-Meier analysis was performed to estimate median overall survival (mOS) with log-rank test to determine significance. All p-values are two-sided. Results Out of 119 total pts, 41 pts received HMA+Ven (Cohort A) and 78 pts received CPX-351 (Cohort B) with baseline characteristics outlined in Table 1. Among 111 response evaluable pts, ORR was 64.1% in Cohort A, including 28.2% with CR and 28.2% with CRi (Table 2). ORR was 50.0% in Cohort B, comprised of CR in 29.2% and CRi in 18.1%. There was no difference in ORR between Cohort A and Cohort B (64.1% vs. 50%, p 0.17). A significantly greater fraction of pts in Cohort B underwent allogeneic stem cell transplant (allo-SCT) (24.4% vs. 2.4%, p=0.004). ORR was higher in pts with European LeukemiaNet (ELN)-defined favorable/intermediate (fav/int) risk compared to adverse risk group in Cohort A (100% vs. 58.3%, p=0.03), however there was no difference in Cohort B (52.6% vs. 49.1%, p=1.0). ORR was similar among adverse risk groups in both cohorts (58.3% in Cohort A vs. 49.1% in Cohort B, p=0.47). Among responders, median time to best response was significantly longer in Cohort A (61.0 days vs. 40.5 days, p<0.0001). Median duration of response was not reached (NR) in both cohorts. Impact of somatic mutations on ORR is represented in Figure 3. Median follow-up was 6.5 months (mo) in Cohort A and 13.0mo in Cohort B. Median OS was similar in both cohorts (A vs. B, 13.8mo vs. 11.1mo, p=0.82) (Figure 1). Among responders, mOS was NR in Cohort A and 18.2mo in Cohort B (p=0.88) (Figure 2). Compared to Cohort B, mOS was superior for pts with fav/int risk disease in Cohort A (14.2mo (B) vs. NR (A), p=0.045) and not different for adverse risk group (11.1mo (B) vs. 7.3mo (A), p=0.2). Prior HMA exposure was 26.8% in Cohort A and 29.5% in Cohort B for an antecedent hematologic malignancy, however it did not impact mOS (p=0.86) or ORR (p=0.7). Early mortality rates for Cohort A and B were similar at day 30 (2.4% vs. 0%) and day 60 (4.9% vs. 3.8%). Rate of relapse was similar between cohorts A and B (16.0% vs. 30.6%, p=0.24). We then compared the outcomes of pts in Cohort B to CPX-351eligible arm from Cohort A (n=14). ORR and mOS were similar in Cohort B and CPX-351 eligible arm (ORR: 50% vs. 50%, p=1.0; mOS 11.1mo vs. 13.8mo, p=0.43). Only 1 patient (7.1%) of the CPX-351eligible arm underwent allo-SCT. Conclusion Our study demonstrates that HMA+Ven results in comparable response rates and survival outcomes to patients receiving CPX-351 when used as an initial remission therapy for patients with newly diagnosed AML, however the median follow up for patients receiving HMA+Ven was short. Survival did not appear to be impacted by a significantly greater proportion of patients proceeding to allo-SCT in the CPX-351 arm. Overall, HMA+Ven may represent a reasonable frontline remission therapeutic choice in patients with AML and a randomized trial would seem justified. Disclosures Kuykendall: Abbvie: Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy; Incyte: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria. List:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Lancet:Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Agios, Biopath, Biosight, Boehringer Inglheim, Celator, Celgene, Janssen, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Karyopharm, Novartis: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Other: fees for non-CME/CE services . Sallman:Celyad: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Komrokji:celgene: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy; pfizer: Consultancy; DSI: Consultancy; JAZZ: Speakers Bureau; JAZZ: Consultancy; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy. Sweet:Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Stemline: Consultancy; Agios: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Research Funding; Astellas: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Jazz: Speakers Bureau. Talati:Agios: Honoraria; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria; Daiichi-Sankyo: Honoraria; Astellas: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Honoraria.

Download Full-text

Prognostic Impact of Minimal Residual Disease inCBFB-MYH11–Positive Acute Myeloid Leukemia

Journal of Clinical Oncology ◽

10.1200/jco.2010.28.6468 ◽

2010 ◽

Vol 28 (23) ◽

pp. 3724-3729 ◽

Cited By ~ 93

Author(s):

Andrea Corbacioglu ◽

Claudia Scholl ◽

Richard F. Schlenk ◽

Karina Eiwen ◽

Juan Du ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Acute Myeloid Leukemia ◽

Minimal Residual Disease ◽

Myeloid Leukemia ◽

Residual Disease ◽

Prognostic Impact ◽

Consolidation Therapy ◽

Old Patients ◽

Minimal Residual ◽

Acute Myeloid

PurposeTo evaluate the prognostic impact of minimal residual disease (MRD) in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) expressing the CBFB-MYH11 fusion transcript.Patients and MethodsQuantitative reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was performed on 684 bone marrow (BM; n = 331) and/or peripheral blood (PB; n = 353) samples (median, 13 samples per patient) from 53 younger adult (16 to 60 years old) patients with AML treated in prospective German-Austrian AML Study Group treatment trials. Samples were obtained at diagnosis (BM, n = 45; PB, n = 48), during treatment course (BM, n = 153; PB, n = 122), and at follow-up (BM, n = 133; PB, n = 183). To evaluate the applicability of PB for MRD detection, 198 paired BM and PB samples obtained at identical time points were analyzed.ResultsThe following three clinically relevant checkpoints were identified during consolidation and early follow-up that predicted relapse: achievement of PCR negativity in at least one BM sample during consolidation therapy (2-year relapse-free survival [RFS], 79% v 54% for PCR positivity; P = .035); achievement of PCR negativity in at least two BM or PB samples during consolidation therapy and early follow-up (≤ 3 months; 2-year RFS, P = .001; overall survival, P = .01); and conversion from PCR negativity to PCR positivity with copy ratios of more than 10 after consolidation therapy. Analysis of paired BM and PB samples revealed BM samples to be more sensitive during the course of therapy, whereas for follow-up, PB samples were equally informative.ConclusionWe defined clinically relevant MRD checkpoints that allow for the identification of patients with CBFB-MYH11–positive AML who are at high risk of relapse. Monitoring of CBFB-MYH11 transcript levels should be incorporated into future clinical trials to guide therapeutic decisions.

Download Full-text

Minimal Residual Disease Monitoring in Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML) with Translocation t(8;21)(q22;q22): Results of the AML Study Group (AMLSG)

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v128.22.1207.1207 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 128 (22) ◽

pp. 1207-1207 ◽

Cited By ~ 8

Author(s):

Mridul Agrawal ◽

Andrea Corbacioglu ◽

Peter Paschka ◽

Daniela Weber ◽

Verena I. Gaidzik ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Myeloid Leukemia ◽

Research Funding ◽

Treatment Cycle ◽

Residual Disease ◽

Prognostic Impact ◽

Time Points ◽

Qrt Pcr ◽

End Of Treatment ◽

Minimal Residual ◽

Risk Of Relapse

Abstract Background: Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) with t(8;21)(q22;q22) results in the formation of the RUNX1-RUNX1T1 fusion transcript which can be used to monitor minimal residual disease (MRD) by quantitative reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR). Early identification of patients (pts) with a high risk of relapse will allow pre-emptive therapy including allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (alloHCT). Recent studies in AML with NPM1 mutation or the CBFB-MYH11 gene fusion revealed that MRD persistence is significantly associated with a high risk of relapse. However, the prognostic impact of MRD assessment in RUNX1-RUNX1T1-positive AML is not well established. Aims: To assess the prognostic impact of qRT-PCR-based MRD monitoring in bone marrow (BM) of pts with t(8;21)/RUNX1-RUNX1T1-positive AML obtained at defined time-points (diagnosis, first and second cycle of chemotherapy, end of treatment). Methods: In total, 120 pts were included based on the availability of a diagnostic BM sample and at least two subsequent BM samples obtained during therapy and at the end of treatment; 106 pts were enrolled in one of six AMLSG treatment trials: AML HD93 (n=1), AML HD98A (NCT00146120; n=13), AMLSG 06-04 (NCT00151255; n=4), AMLSG 07-04 (NCT00151242; n=43), AMLSG 11-08 (NCT00850382; n=31), AMLSG 21-13 (NCT02013648; n=14); 14 pts were treated outside clinical trials. All pts received anthracycline- and cytarabine-based intensive induction followed by subsequent high-dose cytarabine consolidation cycles. For MRD assessment, qRT-PCR from BM specimens was performed using TaqMan technology; RUNX1-RUNX1T1 transcript levels (TL) were reported as the normalized value of RUNX1-RUNX1T1 per 106 transcripts of the housekeeping gene beta2-microglobulin. The maximum sensitivity of the assay was 10-6. Results: The median age of the pts was 47 years (yrs; range, 18-73 yrs); at the time of diagnosis there was a broad range of RUNX1-RUNX1T1 TL (18490 to 14440000) with a median of 227800. RUNX1-RUNX1T1 TL did not correlate with clinical features (age, WBC, platelets, LDH, BM blasts) or associated gene mutations such as KIT, FLT3-ITD/TKD, NRAS or ASXL2. However, pts with additional FLT3 mutation showed higher TL compared to wild-type pts (median, 412955 vs 219052). Cox regression analysis using RUNX1-RUNX1T1 TL as a log10 transformed continuous variable showed that higher RUNX1-RUNX1T1 TL were significantly associated with a higher cumulative incidence of relapse (CIR), inferior event-free survival (EFS) and shorter overall survival (OS) for the two time points "after first treatment cycle" and "at end of treatment" (CIR: HR, 1.84, p=0.001; HR, 1.60, p=0.03; EFS: HR, 1.59, p=0.01, HR, 1.74, p=0.01; OS: HR, 1.63, p=0.02, HR 2.13, p=0.009, respectively). In univariate analyses achievement of MRD negativity (n=35) at the end of treatment was significantly associated with a superior 4-yr OS (93% vs 67%; p=0.007) and 4-yr EFS (81% vs 61%; p=0.04) whereas achievement of MRD negativity after the first (1/85) and second (20/89) treatment cycle was low not reaching significance for any of the clinical endpoints. Separation of the RUNX1-RUNX1T1 TL according to quartiles of distribution showed significant differences in OS (p=0.04), and remission duration (p=0.006) "after first cycle" whereas "at end of treatment" significant differences were only found for OS (p=0.009). Finally, we evaluated the impact of concurrent KIT mutations on the kinetics of RUNX1-RUNX1T1 TL. Following the first treatment cycle, the median RUNX1-RUNX1T1 TL were significantly lower in the KIT wildtype group compared with the KIT mutated group (p=0.02); the same was true "at the end of treatment" (p=0.02). Conclusions: In our study, achievement of MRD negativity at the end of treatment was significantly associated with a better outcome in t(8;21)-positive AML. The fact that earlier time points did not allow the identification of pts with a high relapse risk is probably due to the high sensitivity of the qRT-PCR assay which is also reflected by the low number of pts achieving qRT-PCR negativity after first and second treatment cycle, respectively. Further analyses are ongoing including multivariable as well as molecular subgroup analyses. *These authors contributed equally to the work: MA, AC MA was supported by the Else-Kröner-Fresenius-Stiftung (EKFS). Disclosures Paschka: Celgene: Honoraria; Pfizer Pharma GmbH: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Medupdate GmbH: Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy; ASTEX Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Lübbert:Ratiopharm: Other: Study drug valproic acid; Janssen-Cilag: Other: Travel Funding, Research Funding; Celgene: Other: Travel Funding. Fiedler:Amgen: Consultancy, Other: Travel, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Teva: Other: Travel; Kolltan: Research Funding; Ariad/Incyte: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Gilead: Other: Travel; GSO: Other: Travel; Pfizer: Research Funding. Heuser:Karyopharm Therapeutics Inc: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Bayer Pharma AG: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria; Tetralogic: Research Funding; BerGenBio: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding. Schlenk:Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding.

Download Full-text

Identifying Factors That Predict for Unplanned Readmissions for Acute Myeloid Leukemia Patients Receiving Consolidation Cytarabine Based Therapies

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2019-128807 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. 3433-3433

Author(s):

Caitlin Siebenaller ◽

Madeline Waldron ◽

Kelly Gaffney ◽

Brian P. Hobbs ◽

Ran Zhao ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Myeloid Leukemia ◽

Research Funding ◽

Smoking Status ◽

Consolidation Therapy ◽

Peripheral Vascular ◽

Consolidation Chemotherapy ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

History Of ◽

Acute Myeloid

Background: Younger patients (pts) with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) who enter a remission after intensive induction chemotherapy routinely receive at least one cycle of consolidation therapy with high dose cytarabine (HiDAC). This is commonly administered over a five-day inpatient stay, after which pts are discharged home as their blood counts nadir. It is thus a natural consequence of therapy that readmission for febrile neutropenia (FN) occurs, which can impact measures of quality and value in this population. Precise descriptions of incidence, type, and severity of infection, if identified, are lacking, and thus it is unknown to what standard cancer centers should be held for anticipated readmission. We measured these rates, and attempted to identify predictive factors for readmission. Methods: Adult AML pts ≥ 18 years of age who received at least one cycle of HiDAC consolidation (1000-3000 mg/m2 for six doses) in 2009-2019 were included. Our primary aim was to identify predictive factors for readmission after the first cycle of consolidation chemotherapy. The following pt characteristics and co-morbid conditions were analyzed: age, gender, body mass index (BMI), smoking status, AML cytogenetic risk status, history of diabetes, peripheral vascular disease, cardiovascular disease, chronic pulmonary disease, hepatic impairment, and other cancers. Secondary aims included: estimating rates of all-cause readmissions among all HiDAC cycles, defining the rate of FN readmissions, estimating rates of intensive care unit (ICU) admissions, clinical (e.g., probable pneumonia per imaging) and microbiologically-documented infections, prophylactic (ppx) medications used, and mortality. Statistical analyses interrogated potential risk factors for evidence of association with hospital readmission after the first cycle of consolidation chemotherapy. Results: We identified 182 AML pts who fit inclusion criteria. The median age was 50 years (range 19-73); 55% were female and 45% were male. Statistical analyses revealed no association with readmission after cycle 1 for cytogenetic risk (p=0.85), history of heart failure (p= 0.67), chronic pulmonary disease (p=1), connective tissue disease (p=0.53), cerebrovascular accident (p=0.63), diabetes (p=0.63), gender (p=0.07), history of lymphoma (p=0.53), other solid tumors (p=0.53), liver disease (p=1), myocardial infarction (p=0.71), peripheral vascular disease (p=1), or smoking status (p= 0.52). For 480 HiDAC cycles analyzed (88% at 3000 mg/m2), the overall readmission rate was 50% (242/480), of which 85% (205/242) were for FN. Those readmissions which were not FN were for cardiac complications (chest pain, EKG changes), non-neutropenic fevers or infections, neurotoxicity, bleeding or clotting events, or other symptoms associated with chemotherapy (nausea/vomiting, pain, etc.). Median time to FN hospital admission was 18 days (range 6-27) from the start of HiDAC. Of the 205 FN readmissions, 57% had documented infections. Of these infections, 41% were bacteremia, 23% fungal, 16% sepsis, 12% other bacterial, and 8% viral. Of 480 HiDAC cycles, ppx medications prescribed included: 92% fluoroquinolone (442/480), 81% anti-viral (389/480), 30 % anti-fungal (142/480), and 3% colony stimulating factor (14/480). Only 7% (14/205) of FN readmissions resulted in an ICU admission, and 1% (3/205) resulted in death. Conclusions: Approximately half of patients treated with consolidation therapy following intensive induction therapy can be expected to be readmitted to the hospital. The majority of FN readmissions were associated with clinical or microbiologically documented infections and are not avoidable, however ICU admission and death associated with these complications are rare. Readmission of AML pts following HiDAC is expected, and therefore, should be excluded from measures of value and quality. Disclosures Waldron: Amgen: Consultancy. Hobbs:Amgen: Research Funding; SimulStat Inc.: Consultancy. Advani:Macrogenics: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Kite Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Nazha:Incyte: Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Jazz Pharmacutical: Research Funding; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; MEI: Other: Data monitoring Committee; Tolero, Karyopharma: Honoraria. Gerds:Imago Biosciences: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; CTI Biopharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sierra Oncology: Research Funding. Sekeres:Syros: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millenium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Mukherjee:Partnership for Health Analytic Research, LLC (PHAR, LLC): Consultancy; McGraw Hill Hematology Oncology Board Review: Other: Editor; Projects in Knowledge: Honoraria; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Download Full-text

Mini- Vs. Regular-Dose CLAG-M (Cladribine, Cytarabine, G-CSF, and Mitoxantrone) in Medically Less Fit Adults with Newly-Diagnosed Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML) and Other High-Grade Myeloid Neoplasms

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2019-123542 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. 1364-1364 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Anna B. Halpern ◽

Megan Othus ◽

Kelda Gardner ◽

Genevieve Alcorn ◽

Mary-Elizabeth M. Percival ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Acute Myeloid Leukemia ◽

Myeloid Leukemia ◽

Research Funding ◽

Intensive Therapy ◽

Treatment Intensity ◽

High Grade ◽

Intensive Chemotherapy ◽

Myeloid Neoplasms ◽

Acute Myeloid

Background: Optimal treatment for medically less fit adults with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) remains uncertain. Retrospective data suggest intensive therapy may lead to better outcomes in these patients. However, these findings must be interpreted cautiously because of the possibility of selection bias and other confounders. Ideally, the optimal treatment intensity is defined via randomized trial but whether patients and their physicians are amenable to such a study is unknown. We therefore designed a trial (NCT03012672) to 1) evaluate the feasibility of randomization between intensive and non-intensive therapy in this population and 2) examine the impact of treatment intensity on response rate and survival. We used CLAG-M as high-dose cytarabine-based intensive induction therapy. Rather than selecting different classes of drugs in the 2 treatment arms- which may have different modes of action and therefore confound the question of treatment intensity - we used reduced-dose ("mini") CLAG-M as the non-intensive comparator. Methods: Adults ≥18 years were eligible if they had untreated AML or high-grade myeloid neoplasms (≥10% blasts in blood or marrow) and were medically less fit as defined by having a "treatment related mortality" (TRM) score of ≥13.1, corresponding to a >10-15% 28-day mortality with intensive chemotherapy. Left ventricular ejection fraction ≤45% was the only organ function exclusion. Patient-physician pairs were first asked if they were amenable to randomized treatment allocation. If so, they were randomized 1:1 to mini- vs. regular-dose CLAG-M. If not, in order to evaluate our secondary endpoints, the patient or physician could choose the treatment arm and still enroll on study. Patients and physicians then completed surveys elucidating their decision-making processes. Up to 2 induction courses were given with mini- vs. regular-dose CLAG-M: cladribine 2 or 5 mg/m2/day (days 1-5), cytarabine 100 or 2,000 mg/m2/day (days 1-5), G-CSF 300 or 480µcg/day for weight </≥76kg in both arms (days 0-5), and mitoxantrone 6 or 18 mg/m2/day (days 1-3). CLAG at identical doses was used for post-remission therapy for up to 4 (regular-dose CLAG) or 12 (mini-CLAG) cycles. The primary endpoint was feasibility of randomization, defined as ≥26/50 of patient-physician pairs agreeing to randomization. Secondary outcomes included rate of complete remission (CR) negative for measurable ("minimal") residual disease (MRD), rate of CR plus CR with incomplete hematologic recovery (CR+CRi), and overall survival (OS). Results: This trial enrolled 33 patients. Only 3 (9%) patient/physician pairs agreed to randomization and thus randomization was deemed infeasible (primary endpoint). Eighteen pairs chose mini-CLAG-M and 12 regular-dose CLAG-M for a total of 19 subjects in the lower dose and 14 subjects in the higher dose arms. The decision favoring lower dose treatment was made largely by the physician in 5/18 (28%) cases, the patient in 11/18 (61%) cases and both in 2/18 (11%). The decision favoring the higher dose arm was made by the patient in most cases 9/12 (75%), both physician and patient in 2/12 (16%) and the physician in only 1/12 (8%) cases. Despite the limitations of lack of randomization, patients' baseline characteristics were well balanced with regard to age, performance status, TRM score, lab values and cytogenetic/mutational risk categories (Table 1). One patient was not yet evaluable for response or TRM at data cutoff. Rates of MRDneg CR were comparable: 6/19 (32%) in the lower and 3/14 (21%) in the higher dose groups (p=0.70). CR+CRi rates were also similar in both arms (43% vs. 56% in lower vs. higher dose arms; p=0.47). Three (16%) patients experienced early death in the lower dose arm vs. 1 (7%) in the higher dose arm (p=0.43). With a median follow up of 4.2 months, there was no survival difference between the two groups (median OS of 6.1 months in the lower vs. 4.7 months in the higher dose arm; p=0.81; Figure 1). Conclusions: Randomization of medically unfit patients to lower- vs. higher-intensity therapy was not feasible, and physicians rarely chose higher intensity therapy in this patient group. Acknowledging the limitation of short follow-up time and small sample size, our trial did not identify significant differences in outcomes between intensive and non-intensive chemotherapy. Analysis of differences in QOL and healthcare resource utilization between groups is ongoing. Disclosures Halpern: Pfizer Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Bayer Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Othus:Celgene: Other: Data Safety and Monitoring Committee. Gardner:Abbvie: Speakers Bureau. Percival:Genentech: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer Inc.: Research Funding; Nohla Therapeutics: Research Funding. Scott:Incyte: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy. Becker:AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Glycomimetics, Invivoscribe, JW Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Trovagene: Research Funding; Accordant Health Services/Caremark: Consultancy; The France Foundation: Honoraria. Oehler:Pfizer Inc.: Research Funding; Blueprint Medicines: Consultancy. Walter:BioLineRx: Consultancy; Astellas: Consultancy; Argenx BVBA: Consultancy; BiVictriX: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Amphivena Therapeutics: Consultancy, Equity Ownership; Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy; Boston Biomedical: Consultancy; Covagen: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Race Oncology: Consultancy; Aptevo Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Consultancy; New Link Genetics: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding. OffLabel Disclosure: Cladribine is FDA-approved for Hairy Cell Leukemia. Here we describe its use for AML, where is is also widely used with prior publications supporting its use

Download Full-text

Clinical Outcomes Following Treatment with Gilteritinib or Quizartinib in Patients with Relapsed/Refractory FLT3-ITD+ Acute Myeloid Leukemia

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2020-136118 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽

pp. 42-43

Author(s):

Alexander E. Perl ◽

Qiaoyang Lu ◽

Alan Fan ◽

Nahla Hasabou ◽

Erhan Berrak ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Acute Myeloid Leukemia ◽

Complete Remission ◽

Myeloid Leukemia ◽

Research Funding ◽

Phase 3 ◽

Hematopoietic Stem ◽

Travel Costs ◽

Baseline Characteristics ◽

Acute Myeloid

Background: Gilteritinib is approved for patients (pts) with relapsed/refractory (R/R) FLT3-mutated acute myeloid leukemia (AML), based on findings from the phase 3 ADMIRAL trial (Perl AE, et al. N Engl J Med. 2019). A phase 3 trial, QuANTUM-R, demonstrated the benefit of quizartinib in pts with R/R AML with FLT3 internal tandem duplication (FLT3-ITD) mutations (Cortes JE, et al. Lancet Oncol. 2019). Although eligibility criteria across both studies were similar, QuANTUM-R was more stringent as to prior therapy intensity and remission duration, which potentially enriched for higher-risk pts. We sought to describe outcomes from ADMIRAL among pts who otherwise met eligibility for QuANTUM-R. Methods: In this post-hoc analysis, a subset of pts from ADMIRAL were matched with R/R FLT3-ITD+ AML pts from QuANTUM-R on the basis of baseline characteristics and prior treatment criteria. Matched pts were either refractory to initial anthracycline-based chemotherapy or had relapsed ≤6 mos after achieving composite complete remission (CRc) with an anthracycline-based regimen. Results: Overall, 218 pts with R/R FLT3-ITD+ AML in the ADMIRAL trial (gilteritinib, n=140; salvage chemotherapy [SC], n=78) were matched with the QuANTUM-R intention-to treat (ITT) population (N=367; quizartinib, n=245; SC, n=122). Proportions of pts preselected for high-intensity SC were 66% (n=143/218) in the matched ADMIRAL ITT population and 77% (n=281/367) in the QuANTUM-R ITT populations. Demographic and baseline characteristics of the matched ADMIRAL ITT population and QuANTUM-R ITT population were similar. Median durations of exposure to gilteritinib and quizartinib were 3.8 mos and 3.2 mos, respectively, and median number of treatment cycles received were five and four, respectively. Rates of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) were similar in pts treated with gilteritinib (35%; n=49/140) or quizartinib (32%; n=78/245), as were the proportions of pts who resumed gilteritinib (23%; n=32/140) or quizartinib (20%; n=48/245) therapy post-HSCT. Median overall survival (OS) in pts treated with gilteritinib or quizartinib was longer than that observed with SC. After a median follow-up of 17.4 mos, median OS was 10.2 mos with gilteritinib versus 5.6 mos with SC (hazard ratio [HR]=0.573 [95% CI: 0.403, 0.814]; one-sided nominal P=0.0008). After a median follow-up of 23.5 mos, median OS with quizartinib was 6.2 mos versus 4.7 mos with SC (HR=0.76 [95% CI: 0.58-0.98]; one-sided P=0.02). After censoring for HSCT, median OS was 9.3 mos with gilteritinib versus 5.5 mos with SC (HR=0.525 [95% CI: 0.356-0.775]; nominal one-sided P=0.0005), and 5.7 mos versus 4.6 mos with quizartinib versus SC, respectively (HR=0.79 [95% CI: 0.59, 1.05]; one-sided P=0.05). In both QuANTUM-R and matched ADMIRAL populations, the survival benefits of quizartinib and gilteritinib compared with SC were maintained across multiple subgroups, including high FLT3-ITD allelic ratio subsets. Compared with SC, high CRc rates were observed in pts treated with either gilteritinib (57%; n=80/140) or quizartinib (48%; n=118/245). The complete remission (CR) rate with gilteritinib was 23% (n=32/140), whereas the CR rate with quizartinib was 4% (n=10/245) (Table). Median time to achieve CRc was 1.8 mos with gilteritinib and 1.1 mos with quizartinib, median duration of CRc was 5.5 mos with gilteritinib and 2.8 mos with quizartinib. The safety profiles of gilteritinib and quizartinib were generally similar, though aspartate or alanine aminotransferase elevations (any grade) were more frequent with gilteritinib (41-44%) than quizartinib (≤13%), whereas neutropenia (14% vs 34%, respectively), fatigue (24% vs 39%, respectively), and prolonged QT intervals (9% vs 27%, respectively) were more frequent with quizartinib. Conclusions: In pts with R/R FLT3-ITD+ AML and similar baseline characteristics, both gilteritinib and quizartinib were generally well tolerated and associated with improved survival and treatment response compared with SC. Responses to gilteritinib and quizartinib, as measured by CRc, were similar; blood count recovery varied between the two FLT3 inhibitors. Although cross-study comparisons have substantial limitations, the findings suggest that while remission is achieved faster with quizartinib, response may be more durable and survival potentially longer with gilteritinib. Disclosures Perl: Syndax: Consultancy, Honoraria; Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, Beat AML: Consultancy; Novartis: Honoraria, Other, Research Funding; Agios: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other; Jazz: Honoraria, Other; FORMA Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Writing/editorial support, travel costs for meetings, Research Funding; FUJIFILM Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc: Research Funding; New Link Genetics: Honoraria, Other; Arog Pharmaceuticals Inc: Other: uncompensated consulting, travel costs for meetings; Actinium Pharmaceuticals Inc: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Biomed Valley Discoveries: Research Funding; Astellas: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: writing/editorial support, travel costs for meeting presentations related to study, Research Funding; Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; AbbVie Inc: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Travel costs for meeting; Loxo Oncology Inc, a wholly owned subsidiary of Eli Lilly & Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other. Lu:Astellas: Current Employment. Fan:Astellas Pharma: Current Employment. Hasabou:Astellas Pharma: Current Employment. Berrak:Astellas: Current Employment. Tiu:Eli Lilly & Company: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Ended employment in the past 24 months; Astellas Pharma Global Development: Current Employment.

Download Full-text

The Clinical Features and Prognostic Impact of PRDM16 gene Expression in Adult Acute Myeloid Leukemia

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v128.22.5228.5228 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 128 (22) ◽

pp. 5228-5228

Author(s):

Genki Yamato ◽

Hiroki Yamaguchi ◽

Hiroshi Handa ◽

Norio Shiba ◽

Satoshi Wakita ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Gene Expression ◽

Acute Myeloid Leukemia ◽

Myeloid Leukemia ◽

Risk Group ◽

Gene Mutations ◽

Genetic Alterations ◽

Prognostic Impact ◽

Pediatric Aml ◽

Prdm16 Gene ◽

Acute Myeloid

Abstract Background Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is a complex disease caused by various genetic alterations. Some prognosis-associated cytogenetic aberrations or gene mutations such as FLT3-internal tandem duplication (ITD), t(8;21)(q22;q22)/RUNX1-RUNX1T1, and inv(16)(p13q22)/CBFB-MYH11 have been found and used to stratify the risk. Numerous gene mutations have been implicated in the pathogenesis of AML, including mutations of DNMT3A, IDH1/2, TET2 and EZH2 in addition to RAS, KIT, NPM1, CEBPA and FLT3in the recent development of massively parallel sequencing technologies. However, even after incorporating these molecular markers, the prognosis is unclear in a subset of AML patients. Recently, NUP98-NSD1 fusion gene was identified as a poor prognostic factor for AML. We have reported that all pediatric AML patients with NUP98-NSD1 fusion showed high expression of the PR domain containing 16 (PRDM16; also known as MEL1) gene, which is a zinc finger transcription factor located near the breakpoint at 1p36. PRDM16 is highly homologous to MDS1/EVI1, which is an alternatively spliced transcript of EVI1. Furthermore, PRDM16 is essential for hematopoietic stem cell maintenance and remarkable as a candidate gene to induce leukemogenesis. Recent reports revealed that high PRDM16 expression was a significant marker to predict poor prognosis in pediatric AML. However, the significance of PRDM16 expression is unclear in adult AML patients. Methods A total of 151 adult AML patients (136 patients with de novo AML and 15 patients with relapsed AML) were analyzed. They were referred to our institution between 2004 and 2015 and our collaborating center between 1996 and 2013. The median length of follow-up for censored patients was 30.6 months. Quantitative RT-PCR analysis was performed using the 7900HT Fast Real Time PCR System with TaqMan Gene Expression Master Mix and TaqMan Gene Expression Assay. In addition to PRDM16, ABL1 was also evaluated as a control gene. We investigated the correlations between PRDM16 gene expression and other genetic alterations, such as FLT3-ITD, NPM1, and DNMT3A, and clarified the prognostic impact of PRDM16 expression in adult AML patients. Mutation analyses were performed by direct sequence analysis, Mutation Biased PCR, and the next-generation sequencer Ion PGM. Results PRDM16 overexpression was identified in 29% (44/151) of adult AML patients. High PRDM16 expression correlated with higher white blood cell counts in peripheral blood and higher blast ratio in bone marrow at diagnosis; higher coincidence of mutation in NPM1 (P = 0.003) and DNMT3A (P = 0.009); and lower coincidence of t(8;21) (P = 0.010), low-risk group (P = 0.008), and mutation in BCOR (P = 0.049). Conversely, there were no significant differences in age at diagnosis and sex distribution. Patients with high PRDM16 expression tended to be low frequency in M2 (P = 0.081) subtype, and the remaining subtype had no significant differences between high and low PRDM16 expression. Remarkably, PRDM16 overexpression patients were frequently observed in non-complete remission (55.8% vs. 26.3%, P = 0.001). Patients with high PRDM16 expression tended to have a cumulative incidence of FLT3-ITD (37% vs. 21%, P = 0.089) and MLL-PTD (15% vs. 5%, P = 0.121). We analyzed the prognosis of 139 patients who were traceable. The overall survival (OS) and median survival time (MST) of patients with high PRDM16 expression were significantly worse than those of patients with low expression (5-year OS, 17% vs. 32%; MST, 287 days vs. 673 days; P = 0.004). This trend was also significant among patients aged <65 years (5-year OS, 25% vs. 48%; MST, 361 days vs. 1565 days, P = 0.013). Moreover, high PRDM16 expression was a significant prognostic factor for FLT3-ITD negative patients aged < 65 years in the intermediate cytogenetic risk group (5-year OS, 29% vs. 58%; MST, 215 days vs. undefined; P = 0.032). Conclusions We investigated the correlations among PRDM16 expression, clinical features, and other genetic alterations to reveal clinical and prognostic significance. High PRDM16 expression was independently associated with non-CR and adverse outcomes in adult AML patients, as well as pediatric AML patients. Our finding indicated that the same pathogenesis may exist in both adult and pediatric AML patients with respect to PRDM16 expression, and measuring PRDM16 expression was a powerful tool to predict the prognosis of adult AML patients. Disclosures Inokuchi: Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria.

Download Full-text

Increased Idarubicin Dosage during Consolidation Therapy for Adult Acute Myeloid Leukemia Improves Leukemia-Free Survival

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v128.22.338.338 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 128 (22) ◽

pp. 338-338

Author(s):

Bradstock Kenneth ◽

Emma Link ◽

Juliana Di Iulio ◽

Jeff Szer ◽

Paula Marlton ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Acute Myeloid Leukemia ◽

Complete Remission ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Induction Therapy ◽

Myeloid Leukemia ◽

Research Funding ◽

Consolidation Therapy ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Free Survival ◽

Acute Myeloid

Abstract Background: Anthracylines are one of the major classes of drugs active against acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Increased doses of daunorubicin during induction therapy for AML have been shown to improve remission rates and survival. The ALLG used idarubicin in induction therapy at a dose of 9 mg/m2 x 3 days (total dose 27 mg/m2) in combination with high-dose cytarabine and etoposide (Blood 2005, 105:481), but showed that a total idarubicin dose of 36 mg/m2 was too toxic in this context (Leukemia 2001, 15:1331). In order to further improve outcomes in adult AML by anthracycline dose escalation, we conducted a phase 3 trial comparing standard to an increased idarubicin dose during consolidation therapy. Methods: Patients achieving complete remission after 1 or 2 cycles of intensive induction therapy (idarubicin 9 mg/m2 daily x3, cytarabine 3 g/m2 twice daily on days 1,3,5 and 7, and etoposide 75 mg/m2 daily x7; ICE protocol) were randomized to receive 2 cycles of consolidation therapy with cytarabine 100 mg/m2 per day for 5 days, etoposide 75 mg/m2 for 5 days, and idarubicin 9mg/m2 daily for either 2 or 3 days (standard and intensive arms respectively). No further protocol therapy was given. The primary endpoint was leukemia-free survival from randomization to consolidation therapy (LFS) with overall survival (OS) as secondary endpoint. Results: A total of 422 patients with AML (excluding cases with CBF rearrangements or APL) aged 16 to 60 years were enrolled between 2003-10, with 345 (82%) achieving complete remission, and 293 being randomized to standard (n=146) or intensive (n=147) consolidation arms. The median age was 45 years in both arms (range 16- 60), and both groups were balanced for intermediate versus unfavorable karyotypes and for frequency of mutations involving FLT3-ITD and NPM1 genes. Of the randomized patients, 120 in the standard arm (82%) and 95 in the intensive arm (65%) received the second consolidation cycle (p<0.001). The median total dose of idarubicin received in the 2 consolidation courses was 36 mg/m2 (range 17-45), or 99% (47-125%) of the protocol dose in the standard arm, versus 53 mg/m2 (18-73), or 98% (33-136%) of the protocol dose in the intensive arm. The durations of grades 3-4 neutropenia and thrombocytopenia were significantly longer in the intensive arm, but there were no differences in grade 3 or 4 non-hematological toxicities. There were no non-relapse deaths during consolidation on the standard arm and 2 in the intensive (0% vs 1%; p =0.50). Subsequently, 41 patients in the standard arm and 37 in the intensive arm underwent elective allogeneic BMT during first remission. On intention to-treat analysis uncensored for transplant and with a median follow-up time of 5.3 years (range 0.6 - 9.9), there was improvement in LFS in the intensive arm compared with the standard arm (3 year LFS 47% (95% CI 40-56%) versus 35% (28-44%); HR 0.74 (95% CI 0.55-0.99); p=0.045) (Figure 1). The 3 year OS for the intensive arm was 61% (95% CI 54-70%) and 50% (95% CI 43-59%) for the standard arm; HR 0.75 (95% CI 0.54-1.05); p=0.092). Although adverse cytogenetics, presence of FLT3-ITD mutation, and absence of NPM1 mutation were all associated with poorer outcomes, there was no evidence of a benefit of intensive consolidation being confined to specific cytogenetic or gene mutation sub-groups. Conclusion: We conclude that in adult patients in complete remission after intensive induction chemotherapy an increased dose of idarubicin delivered during consolidation therapy results in improved LFS, without increased non-hematologic toxicity. Figure 1. Figure 1. Disclosures Szer: Ra Pharma: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Alnylam: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Marlton:Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Wei:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; CTI: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Servier: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Cartwright:ROCHE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Roberts:Servier: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding. Mills:Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Meeting attendance sponsorship. Gill:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Seymour:Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel support, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Download Full-text

Survival Improvement Of Secondary Acute Myeloid Leukemia Over Time: Experience From 962 Patients Included In 13 EORTC-Gimema-HOVON Leukemia Group Trials

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v122.21.829.829 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 122 (21) ◽

pp. 829-829 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Safaa M. Ramadan ◽

Stefan Suciu ◽

Marian J.P.L. Stevens-Kroef ◽

Roelof Willemze ◽

Sergio Amadori ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Acute Myeloid Leukemia ◽

Myeloid Leukemia ◽

Research Funding ◽

Malignant Disease ◽

Risk Group ◽

Toxic Exposure ◽

Secondary Acute Myeloid Leukemia ◽

History Of ◽

Over Time ◽

Acute Myeloid

Abstract Background Secondary acute myeloid leukemia (sAML) describes patients (pts) with a history of malignant or non-malignant disease or AML secondary to environmental, occupational or therapeutic exposures. They are generally associated with poor outcome despite the use of intensive treatments. The impact of clinical features and type of treatment on pts' outcome is still not well established. In the current analysis we evaluated sAML pts who were treated in 13 EORTC collaborative trials conducted between May 1986 and January 2008. sAML pts in the database were pooled to characterize clinical features of the disease and evaluate changes in survival over these years (yrs). Method Main selection criteria were AML with bone marrows blasts ≥20% and documented history of prior malignancy, non-malignant disease and/or toxic exposure. AML-M3 and MDS without confirmed diagnosis ≥2 months before AML were excluded. All pts were eligible for standard treatment. Induction regimens were anthracycline and AraC based: 7+3, including etoposide, intensified with high dose (HD)-AraC randomized to standard doses (SD) in younger (AML12) or gemtuzumab ozogamicin in elderly pts. Consolidation regimens were age adapted. In mid-1980s, autologous transplant was tested vs a 2nd consolidation cycle (AML8A) in pts ≤45 yrs and thereafter used systematically in pts ≤60 yrs without available donor. Allogeneic transplant (Allo-SCT) was offered to pts ≤46 yrs with HLA-compatible sibling since mid-1980s and expanded in the last decade to pts up to 59 yrs. Selected pts were divided into 3 sAML cohorts, cohort A after MDS, cohort B after other malignant diseases and cohort C after non-malignant conditions and/or toxic exposure. Results Of 8858 pts enrolled in the 13 evaluated studies, 962 were sAML. Median age was 63 yrs (range 16-85), 413 were young (≤60 yrs) and 549 were elderly (≥61 yrs); 54% were males. Cohort A consisted of 509 pts (median age 64 yrs), cohort B of 362 pts (median age 59 yrs) and cohort C of 91 pts (median age 61 yrs). In cohort B, breast cancer (24%) and lymphoma (14%) were the most frequent primary tumors. Autoimmune diseases represented 22% of non-malignant conditions. In young pts, complete remissions (CR/CRi) rate was 59%; 55% in SD-AraC vs 89% in HD-AraC treated pts. Allo-SCT in CR1 was performed in 21% of all pts. The Allo-SCT rate increased from 5% before 1990, 20% in 1990-1999 to 25% from 2000 (20% in SD-AraC vs 31% of HD-AraC treated pts). CR/CRi was achieved in 45% of elderly pts. Median follow-up was 6 yrs. Median overall-survival (OS) was 14.5 months in young and 9 months in elderly pts. The 5-yr OS was 28% and 7% respectively. Five-yr OS was 11% in cohort A and 22% in both cohort B and C. Treatment outcome of younger pts according to disease features and treatment type over time in cohort A and B are detailed in table 1 & 2. Using Cox model stratified by cohort age, gender, WBC, risk group, year of treatment and HD-AraC were independent prognostic factors for OS. In the AML12 study, compared to denovo pts, sAML pts ≤45 yrs had worse outcome if treated with SD-AraC whereas a better OS was seen if treated with HD-AraC. In elderly pts only the good/intermediate risk group of cohort B had a relatively better 5-yr OS (15%). Conclusions The outcome of sAML in younger pts has improved over the yrs in parallel with HD-AraC introduction in induction of remission. HD-AraC should be considered for younger pts with sAML. Disclosures: Ramadan: Alwaleed Bin Talal Foundation : A research funding is under advanced negotiation with the foundation Other. Suciu:Alwaleed Bin Talal Foundation : A research funding is under advanced negotiation with the foundation Other. Meert:Alwaleed Bin Talal Foundation : A research funding is under advanced negotiation with the foundation Other. de Schaetzen:Alwaleed Bin Talal Foundation : A research funding is under advanced negotiation with the foundation Other Other.

Download Full-text

Measurable residual disease monitoring in acute myeloid leukemia with t(8;21)(q22;q22.1): results from the AML Study Group

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.2019001425 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 134 (19) ◽

pp. 1608-1618 ◽

Cited By ~ 15

Author(s):

Frank G. Rücker ◽

Mridul Agrawal ◽

Andrea Corbacioglu ◽

Daniela Weber ◽

Silke Kapp-Schwoerer ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Myeloid Leukemia ◽

Residual Disease ◽

Disease Monitoring ◽

Study Group ◽

Relapse Risk ◽

Time Points ◽

Key Points ◽

Measurable Residual Disease ◽

Acute Myeloid

Key Points MRD assessment in t(8;21) AML allows identification of patients at high relapse risk at defined time points during treatment and follow-up. MRD− after treatment is the most favorable factor for relapse risk and survival, and serial MRD analyses define cutoffs predicting relapse.

Download Full-text