Residual Disease Monitoring in Childhood Acute Myeloid Leukemia by Multiparameter Flow Cytometry: The MRD-AML-BFM Study Group

2006 ◽  
Vol 24 (22) ◽  
pp. 3686-3692 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claudia Langebrake ◽  
Ursula Creutzig ◽  
Michael Dworzak ◽  
Ondrej Hrusak ◽  
Ester Mejstrikova ◽  
...  

Purpose Monitoring of residual disease (RD) by flow cytometry in childhood acute myeloid leukemia (AML) may predict outcome. However, the optimal time points for investigation, the best antibody combinations, and most importantly, the clinical impact of RD analysis remain unclear. Patients and Methods Five hundred forty-two specimens of 150 children enrolled in the AML-Berlin-Frankfurt-Muenster (BFM) 98 study were analyzed by four-color immunophenotyping at up to four predefined time points during treatment. For each of the 12 leukemia-associated immunophenotypes and time points, a threshold level based on a previous retrospective analysis of another cohort of children with AML and on control bone marrows was determined. Results Regarding all four time points, there is a statistically significant difference in the 3-year event-free survival (EFS) in those children presenting with immunologically detectable blasts at 3 or more time points. The levels at bone marrow puncture (BMP) 1 and BMP2 turned out to have the most significant predictive value for 3-year-EFS: 71% ± 6% versus 48% ± 9%, PLog-Rank = .029 and 70% ± 6% versus 50% ± 7%, PLog-Rank = .033), resulting in a more than two-fold risk of relapse. In a multivariate analysis, using a combined risk classification based on morphologically determined blasts at BMP1 and BMP2, French-American-British classification, and cytogenetics, the influence of immunologically determined RD was no longer statistically significant. Conclusion RD monitoring before second induction has the same predictive value as examining levels at four different time points during intensive chemotherapy. Compared with commonly defined risk factors in the AML-BFM studies, flow cytometry does not provide additional information for outcome prediction, but may be helpful to evaluate the remission status at day 28.

Blood ◽  
2005 ◽  
Vol 106 (11) ◽  
pp. 671-671
Author(s):  
Claudia Langebrake ◽  
Michael Dworzak ◽  
Ondrej Hrusak ◽  
Ester Mejstrikova ◽  
Frank Griesinger ◽  
...  

Abstract Monitoring of minimal residual disease (MRD) by flow cytometry in childhood acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is still a topic of discussion in terms of the optimal time of analysis and the best antibody combinations. Here we report the largest prospective international series of MRD monitoring (395 samples) in children with AML (n=124). All children have been treated according to the AML-BFM 98 study. Based upon a CD33/CD34 backbone, a wide panel of antibodies, independent from the initial immunophenotype, was applied at up to four defined time points during treatment (MRD1: day 15, MRD2: before 2nd induction, MRD3: before 3rd block, MRD4 before 4th block). For each of the 12 leukemia associated immunophenotypes (LAIP) and time points, a threshold level based upon a previous retrospective analysis of 149 other children with AML as well as analysis of normal bone marrow was determined. Regarding all four time points there is a statistically significant difference in the 3-year event free survival (EFS) in those children presenting with MRD positivity at ≥ 3 time points (pEFS 68% vs. 33%, p=0.01). The MRD level at time point 2 has turned out to have the most significant predictive value for 3-year EFS: 66% (n=104) vs. 35% (n=17), plogrank=0.006. Regarding the standard risk group (defined by FAB subtype [M1, M2± Auer rods, M3, M4eo], favorable cytogenetics and morphologically determined treatment response at day 15) only, it is possible to identify a subgroup with poor outcome (20% [n=5] vs. 88% [n=40], plogrank <0.0001). In accordance with this, a multivariate analysis proved the MRD2 as a significant prognostic factor (pChi2=0.023) independent from the known risk factors like FAB subtype, cytogenetics or morphological blast percentage at day 15. As a conclusion, (A) MRD monitoring before second induction has the same predictve value as examining MRD level at four different time points during intensive chemotherapy and (B) the immunologic analysis of MRD before second induction is particulary suitable for risk group stratification and therapeutic consequences in addition to the known risk factors.


2021 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fu-Jia Liu ◽  
Wen-Yan Cheng ◽  
Xiao-Jing Lin ◽  
Shi-Yang Wang ◽  
Tian-Yi Jiang ◽  
...  

The clinically ideal time point and optimal approach for the assessment of measurable residual disease (MRD) in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) are still inconclusive. We investigated the clinical value of multiparameter flow cytometry-based MRD (MFC MRD) after induction (n = 492) and two cycles of consolidation (n = 421). The latter time point was proved as a superior indicator with independent prognostic significance for both relapse-free survival (RFS, HR = 3.635, 95% CI: 2.433–5.431, P <0.001) and overall survival (OS: HR = 3.511, 95% CI: 2.191–5.626, P <0.001). Furthermore, several representative molecular MRD markers were compared with the MFC MRD. Both approaches can establish prognostic value in patients with NPM1 mutations, and FLT3, C-KIT, or N-RAS mutations involved in kinase-related signaling pathways, while the combination of both techniques further refined the risk stratification. The detection of RUNX1–RUNX1T1 fusion transcripts achieved a considerable net reclassification improvement in predicting the prognosis. Conversely, for patients with biallelic CEBPA or DNMT3A mutations, only the MFC method was recommended due to the poor prognostic discriminability in tracking mutant transcripts. In conclusion, this study demonstrated that the MFC MRD after two consolidation cycles independently predicted clinical outcomes, and the integration of MFC and molecular MRD should depend on different types of AML-related genetic lesions.


2014 ◽  
Vol 89 (3) ◽  
pp. 343-344
Author(s):  
Federica Capolunghi ◽  
Claudia Capponi ◽  
Barbara De Stefani ◽  
Matteo Luciani ◽  
Franco Locatelli ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document