BACKGROUND: Conflicting results have been reported about the prognostic relevance of antecedent myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) of older adults. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data from 87 intensively treated AML patients (median age 69 years) were analyzed, with the aim of comparing therapeutic results and toxicity between de novo and AML secondary to a previous MDS (s-AML). Rate of CD34+ cells mobilization and feasibility of autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) were also compared. RESULTS: Complete remission rate, death in induction and primary resistance were not statistically different between the two groups. Median time for neutrophil recovery was similar, while s-AML patients required a longer time for platelet recovery (P = 0.04). There was no difference as to eligibility for consolidation as well as for mobilization and feasibility of ASCT. S-AML had negligible impact on overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS). In the multivariate analysis the only parameter significantly related to either OS or DFS duration was adverse karyotype (P = 0.02 and 0.04, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: A diagnosis of s-AML does not represent a clinically relevant prognostic factor in elderly AML patients treated with aggressive therapy. Furthermore, s-AML patients can be mobilized and autografted with comparable results as opposed to de novo cases.
BACKGROUND: Conflicting results have been reported about the prognostic relevance of antecedent myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) of older adults. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data from 87 intensively treated AMLpatients (median age 69 years) were analyzed, with the aim of comparing therapeutic results and toxicity between de novo and AML secondary to a previous MDS (s-AML). Rate of CD34+ cells mobilization and feasibility of autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) were also compared. RESULTS: Complete remission rate, death in induction and primary resistance were not statistically different between the two groups. Median time for neutrophil recovery was similar, while s-AMLpatients required a longer time for platelet recovery (P = 0.04). There was no difference as to eligibility for consolidation as well as for mobilization and feasibility of ASCT. S-AML had negligible impact on overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS). In the multivariate analysis the only parameter significantly related to either OS or DFS duration was adverse karyotype (P = 0.02 and 0.04, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: A diagnosis of s-AML does not represent a clinically relevant prognostic factor in elderly AMLpatients treated with aggressive therapy. Furthermore, s-AMLpatients can be mobilized and autografted with comparable results as opposed to de novo cases.