The 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 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.
The AML Hub is an independent medical education platform, sponsored by Astellas, Daiichi Sankyo, Johnson & Johnson, Kura Oncology and Syndax, and has been supported through educational grants from Bristol Myers Squibb and the Hippocrate Conference Institute, an association of the Servier Group. The funders are allowed no direct influence on our content. The levels of sponsorship listed are reflective of the amount of funding given. View funders.
Now you can support HCPs in making informed decisions for their patients
Your contribution helps us continuously deliver expertly curated content to HCPs worldwide. You will also have the opportunity to make a content suggestion for consideration and receive updates on the impact contributions are making to our content.
Find out more
Create an account and access these new features:
Bookmark content to read later
Select your specific areas of interest
View aml content recommended for you
ELN recommendations: Assessing fitness and eligibility for treatment in AML
Conventional fitness assessments for AML have traditionally employed a binary classification as either fit or unfit, which limits the ability to tailor therapy to individual patient needs.1 The expanding number of novel treatment options for AML and the growing emphasis on individualized care necessitates a more comprehensive evaluation framework.1 The European Leukemia Net convened a panel of experts to develop clear guidelines and recommendations that consider clinical, biological, and patient-reported factors, ensuring treatment decisions are both medically appropriate and tailored to each patient's needs.1 Venditti et al.1 published their recommendations in Blood Advances.
|
| Key learnings |
| A binary classification for fitness is no longer appropriate and should instead be seen as a spectrum of treatment eligibility based on clinical, biological, and social factors. QoL is an important consideration and should be monitored throughout treatment. |
| Age alone is not a sufficient indicator of fitness, as it is influenced by comorbidities, functional status, and overall health. Performance status, comorbidities, and geriatric assessment tools should be used to evaluate suitability for intensive therapy. |
| Patients should be assessed for eligibility for specific treatment regimens, with clear communication in non-technical language ensuring patient preference is a key determinant for treatment selection. |
| Fitness status should be reassessed at multiple points during treatment as patients may improve or deteriorate. Physicians should ascertain patient and caregiver expectations and goals to ensure informed and accurate treatment selection and shared decision making. |
Abbreviations: AML, acute myeloid leukemia; QoL, quality of life.
References
Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements:
The content was clear and easy to understand
The content addressed the learning objectives
The content was relevant to my practice
I will change my clinical practice as a result of this content
Your opinion matters
Approximately what proportion of your patients with FLT3-mutations also have NPM1 and DNMT3A co-mutations?
