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 moreCreate an account and access these new features:
Bookmark content to read later
Select your specific areas of interest
View aml content recommended for you
Regardless of the advancements made in understanding the genetic and molecular landscapes of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in young patients, bespoke treatment approaches are yet to be adopted. Based on the NCCN 2009 guidelines,2 AML risk stratification depends on genetic/cytogenetic abnormalities of AML cells and groups patients into “favorable-risk" (FR), “intermediate-risk” (IR) or “poor-risk” (PR) categories. This will then determine the treatment pathway of whether they will receive allogeneic stem cell transplantation (allo-SCT). Currently, treatment of IR patients is less defined and often post-induction treatment with allo-SCT is adopted. Nevertheless, this approach does not appropriately take into account the heterogeneity in this group regarding the risk of disease relapse. Despite high complete remission (CR) rates in these patients, overall survival (OS) remains low due to the high rate of relapse incidence.3
Adriano Venditti et al., from the Gruppo Italiano Malattie EMatologiche dell’Adulto (GIMEMA) Foundation investigated in a multicenter prospective clinical trial (NCT01452646) the benefit of risk-adapted, MRD-based therapy in young adults with AML. This study consisted of the integration of pre-treatment cytogenetics/genetics with post-treatment MRD assessment (detected using multiparametric flow cytometry [MFC]) to stratify patients to receive post-consolidation autologous stem cell transplantation (auto-SCT) or allo-SCT.1
LAIP; leukemia-associated immunophenotypes (LAIPs), FR; favorable-risk group, PR; poor-risk group, IR; intermediate-risk group
Overall N 500 Median age (range) 49 (18–60.9) Sex, n (%) Male 260 (52) Female 240 (48) Cytogenetics: FR, n (%) 47 (11) Cytogenetics: IR, n (%) 315 (73) Cytogenetics: PR, n (%) 67 (16) NCCN-FR, n (%) 138 (28) · Received auto-SCT after consolidation, n 78 · Received high dose of cytarabine, n 18 · Received allo-SCT after salvage, n 1 NCCN-IR, n (%) 127 (25) · Received auto-SCT after consolidation, n 20 · Received high dose of cytarabine, n 1 · Received allo-SCT after consolidation, n 32 · Received allo-SCT-graft after salvage, n 9 NCCN-IR-no LAIP, n (%) 47 (9) · Received auto-SCT after consolidation, n 12 · Received allo-SCT after consolidation, n 1 · Received allo-SCt after salvage, n 1 NCCN-PR, n (%) 188 (38) · Received auto-SCT after consolidation, n 1 · Received allo-SCT after consolidation, n 78 · Received allo-SCT after salvage, n 9 Table 2. Survival data*IR patients received auto-SCT or allo-SCT depending on the post-consolidation levels of MRD, LAIP; leukemia-associated immunophenotypes (LAIPs)
Category Two-year OS, % (95% CI) Two-year DFS, % (95% CI) FR 74 (67–82) 61 (52–71) IR 58 (50–68) 61 (52–73) IR-no LAIP 50 (37–67) 48 (33–70) PR 42 (36–50) 45 (37–55) Whole series 56 (52–61) 54 (49–60) Risk-adapted, MRD-driven post-consolidation treatment* NCCN-IR patients, MRD-negative who received auto-SCT 79 (66–94) 61 (47–80) NCCN-IR patients, MRD-positive who received allo-SCT 70 (57–86) 67 (53–83)In conclusion, the authors recognized that this study has intrinsic limitations due to scientific progression over time, such as better understanding of basic biology, new AML classification and increased MRD monitoring, which makes the historical control not wholly comparable. However, this is the first study that attempts to apply a prospective program of risk-adapted, MRD-driven treatment in patients with NCCN-IR AML, that integrates genetics and post-consolidation MRD status.
Patients that were in the NCCN-IR group demonstrated that allo-SCT can be avoided if patients are tested MRD-negative after induction therapy. In contrast, if patients are MRD-positive, allo-SCT improved OS and prolonged DFS to comparable levels as those of patients in the NCCN-FR group. Patients in the IR group, who could not be monitored for LAIP had an inferior 2-year OS of 50% when compared to the other risk groups. This suggests that, in this group, a number of patients could have benefited from an allo-SCT. Further studies that integrate baseline factors and monitor MRD are needed, as it could potentially be a promising tool to refine and customize outcome prediction in patients with AML.
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