BACKGROUND: Patients with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia (AML) often have residual leukemia in the bone marrow 10 to 14 days after the start of induction therapy. Some cooperative groups administer a second cycle of similar induction therapy on Day 14 if there is residual leukemia. It is a common perception that the presence of residual leukemia at that point predicts a worse prognosis irrespective of the therapy received. The objective of this study was to determine whether patients who required a second cycle of induction (given on or about Day 14) to achieve complete remission (CR) had a worse prognosis than patients who achieved CR after only 1 cycle, because a worse prognosis may alter postremission therapy. METHODS: Patients who were enrolled on 6 consecutive studies for AML that were conducted by the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) between 1983 to 1993 received induction therapy. If residual leukemia was present in the bone marrow on the Day 14 after the start of induction, then patients were to receive a second cycle of identical induction therapy. All patients who achieved CR after 1 or 2 cycles received the identical postremission therapy. RESULTS: In each of the 6 ECOG studies, the long-term outcome was similar for patients who required 1 or 2 cycles of induction therapy to achieve CR, and their outcome was independent of other prognostic variables, such as age or karyotype. CONCLUSIONS: The presence of residual leukemia in bone marrow 10 to 14 days after induction therapy did not predict a worse prognosis if patients received second, similar cycle of induction therapy and achieved CR.
BACKGROUND:Patients with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia (AML) often have residual leukemia in the bone marrow 10 to 14 days after the start of induction therapy. Some cooperative groups administer a second cycle of similar induction therapy on Day 14 if there is residual leukemia. It is a common perception that the presence of residual leukemia at that point predicts a worse prognosis irrespective of the therapy received. The objective of this study was to determine whether patients who required a second cycle of induction (given on or about Day 14) to achieve complete remission (CR) had a worse prognosis than patients who achieved CR after only 1 cycle, because a worse prognosis may alter postremission therapy. METHODS:Patients who were enrolled on 6 consecutive studies for AML that were conducted by the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) between 1983 to 1993 received induction therapy. If residual leukemia was present in the bone marrow on the Day 14 after the start of induction, then patients were to receive a second cycle of identical induction therapy. All patients who achieved CR after 1 or 2 cycles received the identical postremission therapy. RESULTS: In each of the 6 ECOG studies, the long-term outcome was similar for patients who required 1 or 2 cycles of induction therapy to achieve CR, and their outcome was independent of other prognostic variables, such as age or karyotype. CONCLUSIONS: The presence of residual leukemia in bone marrow 10 to 14 days after induction therapy did not predict a worse prognosis if patients received second, similar cycle of induction therapy and achieved CR.
Authors: M S Tallman; J W Andersen; C A Schiffer; F R Appelbaum; J H Feusner; A Ogden; L Shepherd; C Willman; C D Bloomfield; J M Rowe; P H Wiernik Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1997-10-09 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Frederick R Appelbaum; Holly Gundacker; David R Head; Marilyn L Slovak; Cheryl L Willman; John E Godwin; Jeanne E Anderson; Stephen H Petersdorf Journal: Blood Date: 2006-02-02 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: K Wheatley; A K Burnett; A H Goldstone; R G Gray; I M Hann; C J Harrison; J K Rees; R F Stevens; H Walker Journal: Br J Haematol Date: 1999-10 Impact factor: 6.998
Authors: C P Leith; K J Kopecky; J Godwin; T McConnell; M L Slovak; I M Chen; D R Head; F R Appelbaum; C L Willman Journal: Blood Date: 1997-05-01 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: P A Cassileth; D P Harrington; F R Appelbaum; H M Lazarus; J M Rowe; E Paietta; C Willman; D D Hurd; J M Bennett; K G Blume; D R Head; P H Wiernik Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1998-12-03 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: J M Rowe; J W Andersen; J J Mazza; J M Bennett; E Paietta; F A Hayes; D Oette; P A Cassileth; E A Stadtmauer; P H Wiernik Journal: Blood Date: 1995-07-15 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Michelle A Elliott; Mark R Litzow; Louis L Letendre; Robert C Wolf; Curtis A Hanson; Ayalew Tefferi; Martin S Tallman Journal: Blood Date: 2007-10-01 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Paul Ferguson; Robert K Hills; Angela Grech; Sophie Betteridge; Lars Kjeldsen; Michael Dennis; Paresh Vyas; Anthony H Goldstone; Donald Milligan; Richard E Clark; Nigel H Russell; Charles Craddock Journal: Haematologica Date: 2016-08-18 Impact factor: 9.941
Authors: Roland B Walter; Brenda M Sandmaier; Barry E Storer; Colin D Godwin; Sarah A Buckley; John M Pagel; Mohamed L Sorror; H Joachim Deeg; Rainer Storb; Frederick R Appelbaum Journal: Biol Blood Marrow Transplant Date: 2014-09-30 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Joseph M Brandwein; Michelle Geddes; Jeannine Kassis; Andrea K Kew; Brian Leber; Thomas Nevill; Mitchell Sabloff; Irwindeep Sandhu; Andre C Schuh; John M Storring; John Ashkenas Journal: Am J Blood Res Date: 2013-05-05
Authors: Tod A Morris; Carlos M DeCastro; Louis F Diehl; Jon P Gockerman; Anand S Lagoo; Zhiguo Li; Joseph O Moore; David A Rizzieri; Arati V Rao Journal: Leuk Res Date: 2012-10-07 Impact factor: 3.156