All content on this site is intended for healthcare professionals only. By acknowledging this message and accessing the information on this website you are confirming that you are a Healthcare Professional. If you are a patient or carer, please visit Know AML.
Introducing
Now you can personalise
your AML Hub experience!
Bookmark content to read later
Select your specific areas of interest
View content recommended for you
Find out moreThe AML Hub website uses a third-party service provided by Google that dynamically translates web content. Translations are machine generated, so may not be an exact or complete translation, and the AML Hub cannot guarantee the accuracy of translated content. The AML Hub and its employees will not be liable for any direct, indirect, or consequential damages (even if foreseeable) resulting from use of the Google Translate feature. For further support with Google Translate, visit Google Translate Help.
Test your knowledge! Take our quick quiz before and after you read this article to find out if you improved your knowledge. Results help us to improve content and continually provide open-access education.
The AML Hub has previously covered the 2022 European LeukemiaNet (ELN) recommendations for the diagnosis and management of acute myeloid leukemia (AML). These recommendations include updates to the classification of AML, an increased emphasis on genomic diagnostics, assessment of measurable residual disease (MRD), and treatment recommendations.1
During the European Hematology Association (EHA) 2023 Hybrid Congress, Döhner2 and Ossenkoppele3 discussed the latest updates to the ELN 2022 recommendations. As part of our editorial theme on navigating the updates in classifications systems for AML, we are pleased to summarize the key updates to ELN 2022 recommendations.
The 2022 ELN stratifies patients as favorable, intermediate, or adverse risk group based on genetic factors (Table 1). However, this stratification should not be solely based on genetic screening at diagnosis and can change during treatment based on MRD analysis. It is also important to note that this risk stratification is based on data from intensively treated patients and is not applicable to patients receiving non-intensive treatment.
Table 1. 2022 ELN risk classification by genetics at initial diagnosis*
Risk category |
Genetic abnormality |
---|---|
Favorable |
t(8;21)(q22;q22.1)/RUNX1::RUNX1T1 |
inv(16)(p13.1q22) or t(16;16)(p13.1;q22)/CBFB::MYH11 |
|
Mutated NPM1 without FLT3-ITD |
|
bZIP in-frame mutated CEBPA |
|
Intermediate |
Mutated NPM1 with FLT3-ITD |
Wild-type NPM1 with FLT3-ITD (without adverse risk genetic lesions) |
|
t(9;11)(p21.3;q23.3)/MLLT3::KMT2A |
|
Cytogenetic and/or molecular abnormalities not classified as favorable or adverse |
|
Adverse |
t(6;9)(p23;q34.1)/DEK::NUP214 |
t(v;11q23.3)/KMT2A-rearranged |
|
t(9;22)(q34.1;q11.2)/BCR::ABL1 |
|
t(8;16)(p11;p13)/KAT6A::CREBBP |
|
inv(3)(q21.3q26.2) or t(3;3)(q21.3;q26.2)/GATA2, MECOM(EVI1) |
|
t(3q26.2;v)/MECOM(EVI1)-rearranged |
|
−5 or del(5q); −7; −17/abn(17p) |
|
Complex karyotype, monosomal karyotype |
|
Mutated ASXL1, BCOR, EZH2, RUNX1, SF3B1, SRSF2, STAG2, U2AF1, and/or ZRSR2 |
|
Mutated TP53 |
|
ELN, European LeukemiaNet; ITD, internal tandem duplication. |
Patients with AML with mutated FLT3-internal tandem duplication (ITD) are categorized as intermediate-risk, irrespective of allelic ratio and NPM1 mutational status. This is mainly due to methodological issues with standardizing FLT3-ITD allelic ratio, the role of MRD for NPM1 mutations, and the impact of midostaurin-based therapy on FLT3-ITD mutated AML.
Since the publication of the 2022 ELN recommendations, the use of next-generation sequencing (NGS)-based analysis of FLT3-ITD MRD has led to the improved prediction of survival outcomes. For example, data from the QuANTUM-First trial demonstrated the prognostic impact of FLT3-ITD MRD and variant allele frequency in patients treated with quizartinib.
Patients with AML with myelodysplasia-related mutations are categorized as adverse risk. Retrospective studies have shown that the poor prognosis is associated with myelodysplasia-related mutations irrespective of the patients' age. There is a significant overlap between genetically defined AML and the revised 4th edition of the World Health Organization (WHO) classification category of AML with myelodysplasia-related changes (AML-MRC), raising the question of whether these patients may benefit from CPX-351 treatment. The NCRI AML19 trial showed that CPX-351 significantly improved survival outcomes versus fludarabine, cytarabine, granulocyte-colony stimulating factor, and idarubicin (FLAG-Ida) in patients with high-risk AML with myelodysplasia-related mutations.
The 2022 ELN risk stratification is not applicable to older, unfit patients. Data from the ASTRAL-1 and the VIALE-A trials suggests that the 2022 ELN risk stratification does not provide clinically meaningful outcome stratification in these older, unfit populations.
Figure 1. Oncogenetic tree model using data from the ASTRAL-1 trial*
*Adapted from Döhner2 and Jahn et al.4
†Each node represents a gene mutation, and each branch describes the evolution of different possible pathways of leukemogenesis by inferring the sequence of mutation acquisition.
The 2022 ELN recommendations have impacted the initial genetic workup in the diagnosis of AML. Gene mutations and rearrangements with clinical relevance should be screened at diagnosis as the presence of mutations influences the treatment decisions (Figure 2 and 3).
Figure 2. First-line treatment for fit patients in Europe based on genetic stratification*
ADC, antibody drug conjugate; AHD, antecedent hematological disorder; allo-HSCT, allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation; AML, acute myeloid leukemia; CBF, core binding factor; CLIA, cladribine, idarubicin, cytarabine; FLAG-Ida, fludarabine, cytarabine, granulocyte-colony stimulating factor and idarubicin; GO, gemtuzumab ozogamicin; ITD, internal tandem duplication; MRC, myelodysplasia-related changes; t-AML, therapy-related AML; TKD, tyrosine kinase domain.
*Adapted from Ossenkoppele3
Figure 3. First-line treatment for unfit patients in Europe based on genetic stratification*
Allo-HSCT, allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation; AML, acute myeloid leukemia; Gilt, gilteritinib; HMA, hypomethylating agents; ITD, internal tandem duplication; LDAC, low-dose cytarabine; TKD, tyrosine kinase domain; Ven, venetoclax.
*Adapted from Ossenkoppele3
In the last 20 years, around ten new drugs have been approved for the treatment of AML (Table 2).
Table 2. Recent drug approvals for the treatment of AML*
Drug |
Indication |
Approval |
|
---|---|---|---|
FDA |
EMA |
||
Midostaurin |
First-line FLT3-ITD/TKD mutated AML |
Apr 2017 |
Sep 2017 |
Gilteritinib |
R/R FLT3-ITD/TKD mutated AML |
Nov 2018 |
Oct 2019 |
Quizartinib |
First-line FLT3-ITD mutated AML |
Jul 20235 |
Aug 2022 |
Gemtuzumab ozogamicin |
First-line (R/R) CD33+ AML |
Sep 2017 |
Apr 2018 |
CPX-351 |
t-AML/AML-MRC |
Aug 2017 |
Sep 2018 |
Glasdegib |
First-line frail AML + LDAC |
Nov 2018 |
Apr 2020 |
Venetoclax |
First-line frail AML + HMA/LDAC |
Nov 2018 |
May, 20216 |
Ivosidenib |
First-line R/R IDH1 mutated AML, first-line frail and IDH1 mutated AML + HMA |
Jul 2018, May 2019 |
May 2023 |
Enasidenib |
R/R IDH2 mutated AML |
Aug 2017 |
- |
Tagraxofusp |
Blastic plasmacytoid dendritic cell neoplasm |
Dec 2018 |
Nov 2020 |
AML, acute myeloid leukemia; EMA, European Medicines Agency; FDA, Food and Drug Administration; HMA, hypomethylating agent; ITD, internal tandem duplication; LDAC, low-dose cytarabine; MRC, myelodysplasia-related changes; R/R, relapsed/refractory; t-AML, therapy-related AML; TKD, tyrosine kinase domain. *Adapted from Ossenkoppele.3 |
Between January 2000 and September 2020, 167 agents with 96 targets were investigated in 397 phase II trials for AML, suggesting the need for innovative approaches for investigating novel agents. Therefore, close collaboration between international trial groups is important to develop clinical trials with sufficiently large populations in a short time frame, such as in the HOVON 156/AMLSG 28–18 trial and the HOVON 150/AMLSG 29–18 trial. The EVOLVE consortium is a new group led by HOVON, AMLSG, and UK NCRI for studies of unfit patients with AML.
Clinical trials need to be innovative in their approaches such as using surrogate endpoints (e.g., MRD) and statistical methods (e.g., Bayesian interim analysis). The prognostic impact of MRD in patients treated with intensive chemotherapy has been previously shown in a meta-analysis of 11,151 patients. MRD assessment can be useful to:
The 2021 update on MRD in AML from the ELN MRD working group suggests that tailored treatment and/or conditioning regimen modification should be considered, particularly in clinical trials to reduce relapse in patients who are:
In the HO132 trial, MRD was used to guide treatment decisions, in patients with favorable or intermediate risk. Patients with favorable risk and MRD negative status received autologous peripheral blood stem cell transplantation, while patients with favorable or intermediate risk and MRD positive status received allogeneic peripheral blood stem cell transplantation.
Bayesian inference is a tool proposed for adaptive designs of clinical trials. It has the potential to strengthen the control arm leading to more rapid trial completion while allowing for benefit/risk assessment during trial accrual. The impact of Bayesian inference was assessed using the HO132 trial at four simulated interim analyses for event-free survival using matched patients from the preceding HOVON 102 trial to reinforce the control arm. The targeted HR of 0.76 for the primary endpoint of event-free survival was never reached at the four successive interim analyses versus observed HR of 0.99, suggesting that the probability of reaching a HR of 0.76 was very low.
Education around the correct implementation of the 2022 ELN recommendations is important for these guidelines to have the desired effect of improving clinical practice. Döhner2 highlights the need for comprehensive risk assessment incorporating both genetic screening at diagnosis and MRD analysis during treatment, the prognostic importance of NGS-based MRD assessment in patients with FLT3-ITD mutations, the relevance of AML with myelodysplasia-related gene mutations in treatment decisions, and that the 2022 ELN risk stratification is based on intensively treated patients and not applicable to older, unfit patients. He also discusses prospective studies identifying FLT3-ITD, NRAS, KRAS, TP53, and DDX41 as biomarkers for outcome stratification in patients treated with HMA-based therapies, and the potential of DDX41 to become a new marker for disease stratification.2
Ossenkoppele3 raises the need for comprehensive genetic testing with a short turnaround time, genetic-driven treatment approaches, and the need for international collaboration and novel innovative clinical trial design due to the updated AML classification.
Your opinion matters
Subscribe to get the best content related to AML delivered to your inbox