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.

The AML Hub uses cookies on this website. They help us give you the best online experience. By continuing to use our website without changing your cookie settings, you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our updated Cookie Policy

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 more
  TRANSLATE

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 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.

Steering CommitteeAbout UsNewsletterContact
LOADING
You're logged in! Click here any time to manage your account or log out.
LOADING
You're logged in! Click here any time to manage your account or log out.

The AML Hub is an independent medical education platform, sponsored by Daiichi Sankyo, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Kura Oncology, Roche and Syndax and has been supported through a grant from Bristol Myers Squibb. 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.

2023-09-13T13:29:04.000Z

The impact of post-transplant MRD on survival in AML and MDS: An analysis from the phase II FIGARO trial

Sep 13, 2023
Share:
Learning objective: After reading this article, learners will be able to discuss the potential impact of post-transplant MRD in patients with AML who have undergone hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.

Bookmark this article

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.

Reduced-intensity conditioning (RIC) regimens allow patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) who are unfit for myeloablative conditioning regimens to receive allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT). However, the prognostic impact of post-transplant T-cell chimerism and measurable residual disease (MRD) in patients with AML or MDS receiving RIC allo-HSCT has not been assessed prospectively.1

The AML Hub previously reported results from the randomized phase II FIGARO trial of patients receiving allo-HSCT for AML or MDS, comparing a fludarabine + cytarabine + amsacrine + busulfan + anti-thymocyte globulin (FLAMSA-Bu) RIC regimen with the investigator’s standard fludarabine-based RIC regimen choice.1 The Hub has also previously published a video interview with Charles Craddock discussing predictors of outcomes post-transplant from this trial. Recently, Loke et al.1 published further analyses from the trial in Blood Advances assessing the impact of post-transplant MRD and T-cell chimerism status on survival outcomes.

Study design and patient characteristics

The study design of the FIGARO trial has been covered previously. Serial samples for MRD analysis, assessed by flow cytometry, were collected pre-transplant, and for 187 patients, post-transplant at Day 42, and Months 3, 6, 9, and 12. Peripheral blood samples for T-cell chimerism were collected every 3 months during the first year post-transplant. The median follow-up was 49.7 months.

Key findings

Post-transplant MRD frequency

  • In the first 12 months after allo-HSCT, 16% of patients had ≥1 MRD-positive (MRD+) sample.
  • MRD positivity was most frequently noted on Day 42 (n = 13) and Month 3 (n = 12), then decreasing over time.
  • Baseline disease and transplant characteristics were similar between MRD+ patients and MRD negative (MRD−) patients (Table 1).
  • Multivariate analysis showed that MRD pre-transplant was the only factor associated with post-transplant MRD (p = 0.03).

Table 1. Baseline characteristics*

Characteristics, % unless otherwise specified

Overall
(N = 216)

Post-transplant MRD status

p value

Positive at any time point (n = 29)

Negative only (n = 158)

RIC regimen

 

 

 

 

               FLAMSA-Bu

50

34

49

0.21

               Flu/Bu/ATG

29

31

32

-

               Flu/melphalan/alemtuzumab

14

21

13

-

               Flu/Bu/alemtuzumab

7

14

6

-

Age

 

 

 

 

               60 years

58

66

59

0.61

               >60 years            

42

34

41

-

Sex

 

 

 

 

               Female

42

38

43

0.97

               Male

58

62

57

-

Underlying disease

 

 

 

 

               AML

67

69

64

0.44

               MDS

33

31

36

-

Patients with cytogenetic risk-AML

 

 

 

 

               Adverse risk

31

45

23

0.11

               Intermediate risk

64

45

71

-

               Favorable risk

5

10

5

-

               Unknown

1

-

1

-

Disease status (AML only)

 

 

 

 

               CR1/CR2

96

90

97

0.38

               Primary refractory

4

10

3

-

FLT3

 

 

 

 

               Absent

40

38

39

0.76

               Present

17

24

18

-

NPM1

 

 

 

 

               Absent

41

52

39

0.90

               Present

16

10

18

-

Donor type

 

 

 

 

               Sibling

21

28

20

0.82

               Unrelated

79

72

80

-

Pre-transplant MRD

 

 

 

 

               Positive

20

34

20

0.03

               Negative

52

41

56

-

               Missing

28

24

24

-

AML, acute myeloid leukemia; ATG, anti-thymocyte globulin; Bu, busulfan; CR1/CR/2, first or second complete remission; FLAMSA, fludarabine + cytarabine + amsacrine; Flu, fludarabine; MDS, myelodysplastic syndromes; MRD, measurable residual disease; RIC, reduced-intensity conditioning.
*Adapted from Loke et al.1

Impact of MRD on survival outcomes

  • Post-transplant MRD positivity was associated with inferior overall survival (OS) and relapse-free survival (RFS) (Table 2).
  • Cox model analysis with post-transplant MRD status as a time-dependent variable showed that MRD+ patients had inferior OS (hazard ratio [HR], 2.18; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.31–3.62; p = 0.0028) and RFS (HR, 5.32; 95% CI, 3.27–8.68; p < 0.001).
  • Multivariate analysis accounting for other prognostic factors, including FLT3 status, cytogenetic risk, and chronic graft-versus-host disease (GvHD), demonstrated that post-transplant MRD remained predictive of outcomes, independent of pre-transplant MRD status.
    • Post-transplant MRD was associated with inferior OS in patients who were MRD+ pre-transplant (adjusted HR, 2.70; 95% CI, 1.76–4.15; p < 0.001) and MRD− pre-transplant (adjusted HR, 2.68; 95% CI, 1.79–4.03; p < 0.001).
    • Adverse cytogenetics was also associated with inferior OS in patients who were MRD− pre-transplant (adjusted HR, 1.61; 95% CI, 1.08–2.39; p = 0.019).

Table 2. 2-year estimated survival outcomes based on MRD status at each time point*

Outcome

Time point

Post-transplant MRD status

MRD+

2-year estimate (95% CI)

MRD

2-year estimate (95% CI)

p value

CIR

Day 42

92.3 (35.8–99.4)

22.9 (16.4–30.1)

<0.001

Month 3

50.0 (19.2–74.8)

20.5 (14.0–27.7)

0.011

Month 6

83.3 (8.6–98.7)

17.4 (11.1–24.9)

<0.001

Month 9

100

14.6 (8.5–22.1)

<0.001

Month 12

50.0 (0.0–96.0)

14.0 (8.0–21.6)

0.19

OS

Day 42

30.8 (9.5–55.4)

66.9 (58.5–74.0)

<0.001

Month 3

58.3 (27.0–80.1)

74.0 (65.5–80.6)

0.30

Month 6

50.0 (11.1–80.4)

80.6 (72.0–86.8)

<0.0001

Month 9

33.3 (0.9–77.4)

87.8 (79.5–92.9)

<0.0001

Month 12

50.0 (0.6–91.0)

94.7 (87.8–97.8)

0.18

RFS

Day 42

7.7 (0.5–29.2)

61.0 (52.6–68.5)

<0.001

Month 3

50.0 (20.8–73.6)

67.3 (58.6–74.6)

0.13

Month 6

16.7 (0.8–51.7)

75.4 (66.3–82.3)

<0.001

Month 9

33.3 (0.9–77.4)

79.3 (69.7–86.2)

<0.001

Month 12

50.0 (0.6–91.0)

83.7 (74.4–89.9)

0.31

CI, confidence interval; CIR, cumulative incidence of relapse; MRD, measurable residual disease; OS, overall survival; RFS, relapse-free survival.
*Adapted from Loke et al.1

Impact of mixed donor T-cell chimerism on survival outcomes

  • Of the 155 patients with sequential chimerism status data available, 52 had mixed donor T-cell chimerism at Month 3 while being relapse-free.
  • Patients with mixed T-cell chimerism had inferior OS and RFS.
    • Multivariate Cox model analysis of OS with chimerism as a time-dependent variable and excluding MRD revealed that acquiring full donor T-cell chimerism improved OS (HR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.17–0.66; p = 0.0018).

Interaction between T-cell chimerism and post-transplant MRD

T-cell chimerism and post-transplant MRD data up to Month 6 were available for 94 patients.

  • Of patients with full donor T-cell chimerism (n = 47) at both Months 3 and 6, 10.6% were MRD+, whereas of those with mixed donor T-cell chimerism (n = 47) at Months 3 and 6, 29.8% were MRD+ before or at the time of mixed donor chimerism (p = 0.018).
  • The presence of MRD impacted 2-year OS and RFS in patients with mixed donor-T-cell chimerism but not in those with full donor chimerism (Figure 1).
  • A similar pattern was observed up to 1 year post-transplant:
    • MRD positivity was observed only in 7% of patients with full donor T-cell chimerism for ≥2 sequential time points.
    • Of the 24 patients who were MRD− up to observed mixed donor T-cell chimerism, 21% converted to MRD+ or relapsed within 3 months, with only 1 patient relapsing in the subsequent 2 years.

Figure 1. Impact of T-cell chimerism and post-transplant MRD status on estimated 2-year survival outcomes* 

MRD, measurable residual disease; OS, overall survival; RFS, relapse-free survival.
*Data from Loke et al.1

HLA-DR downregulation and post-transplant MRD

It is thought that the graft-versus-leukemia effect of allo-HSCT may be affected by downregulation of HLA Class II molecules on the surfaces of leukemic blasts; therefore, the association of increased risk of relapse with MRD positivity and HLA-DR downregulation was investigated.

  • 34% of patients with post-transplant MRD positivity had HLA-DR-negative blasts (HLA-DR downregulation), all of whom relapsed.
  • These patients also had worse 2-year OS (20.0% vs 57.9%; p < 0.001) and RFS (10.0% vs 47.4%; p < 0.001) than those who did not have the presence of HLA-DR-negative-blasts.

Conclusion

This analysis from the FIGARO trial demonstrated the prognostic significance of post-transplant MRD, independent of pre-transplant MRD status, in patients with AML or MDS who underwent allo-HSCT using a RIC regimen. This analysis also showed the impact of T-cell chimerism on transplant outcomes and the interaction with post-transplant MRD, and that HLA-DR blast expression can provide further prognostic information in patients who are MRD+ post-transplant.  

The authors concluded that the results from this study support combined MRD and T-cell donor chimerism monitoring for patients with AML or MDS following RIC allo-HSCT.

  1. Loke J, McCarthy N, Jackson A, et al. Posttransplant MRD and T-cell chimerism status predict outcomes in patients who received allografts for AML/MDS. Blood Advances. 2023;7(14):3666-3676. DOI: 1182/bloodadvances.2022009493

Your opinion matters

HCPs, what is your preferred format for educational content on the AML Hub?
15 votes - 78 days left ...

Newsletter

Subscribe to get the best content related to AML delivered to your inbox