PURPOSE: In acute myeloid leukemia (AML), initial treatment response by morphologic analysis of bone marrow predicts long-term outcome. Response can now be assessed by minimal residual disease (MRD) monitoring with flow cytometry or polymerase chain reaction (PCR). We determined the relation among the results of these approaches and their prognostic value. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In the multicenter AML02 study, follow-up bone marrow samples from 203 children and adolescents with newly diagnosed AML were examined by flow cytometry (n = 1,514), morphology (n = 1,382), and PCR amplification of fusion transcripts (n = 508). Results were correlated with treatment outcome. RESULTS: Among 1,215 samples with less than 5% leukemic myeloblasts by morphology, 100 (8.2%) were MRD positive (≥ 0.1%) by flow cytometry, whereas 96 (57.5%) of the 167 samples with ≥ 5% blasts were MRD negative. Virtually all (308 of 311; 99.0%) MRD-negative samples by PCR were also MRD negative by flow cytometry. However, only 19 (9.6%) of the 197 PCR-positive samples were flow cytometry positive, with analyses of AML1-ETO and CBFβ-MYH11 accounting for most discrepancies, whereas eight of 13 MLL-positive samples had detectable MRD by flow cytometry. MRD by flow cytometry after induction 1 or 2 predicted lower event-free survival and higher relapse rate (P < .001) and was an independent prognostic factor in a multivariable analysis; prediction was not improved by morphologic information or molecular findings. CONCLUSION: In childhood AML, morphologic assessment of treatment response has limited value if MRD is measured by flow cytometry. MLL fusion transcripts can provide prognostic information in some patients, whereas monitoring of AML1-ETO and CBFβ-MYH11 transcripts is largely uninformative.
PURPOSE: In acute myeloid leukemia (AML), initial treatment response by morphologic analysis of bone marrow predicts long-term outcome. Response can now be assessed by minimal residual disease (MRD) monitoring with flow cytometry or polymerase chain reaction (PCR). We determined the relation among the results of these approaches and their prognostic value. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In the multicenter AML02 study, follow-up bone marrow samples from 203 children and adolescents with newly diagnosed AML were examined by flow cytometry (n = 1,514), morphology (n = 1,382), and PCR amplification of fusion transcripts (n = 508). Results were correlated with treatment outcome. RESULTS: Among 1,215 samples with less than 5% leukemic myeloblasts by morphology, 100 (8.2%) were MRD positive (≥ 0.1%) by flow cytometry, whereas 96 (57.5%) of the 167 samples with ≥ 5% blasts were MRD negative. Virtually all (308 of 311; 99.0%) MRD-negative samples by PCR were also MRD negative by flow cytometry. However, only 19 (9.6%) of the 197 PCR-positive samples were flow cytometry positive, with analyses of AML1-ETO and CBFβ-MYH11 accounting for most discrepancies, whereas eight of 13 MLL-positive samples had detectable MRD by flow cytometry. MRD by flow cytometry after induction 1 or 2 predicted lower event-free survival and higher relapse rate (P < .001) and was an independent prognostic factor in a multivariable analysis; prediction was not improved by morphologic information or molecular findings. CONCLUSION: In childhood AML, morphologic assessment of treatment response has limited value if MRD is measured by flow cytometry. MLL fusion transcripts can provide prognostic information in some patients, whereas monitoring of AML1-ETO and CBFβ-MYH11 transcripts is largely uninformative.
Authors: G Marcucci; M A Caligiuri; H Döhner; K J Archer; R F Schlenk; K Döhner; E A Maghraby; C D Bloomfield Journal: Leukemia Date: 2001-07 Impact factor: 11.528
Authors: S C Raimondi; M N Chang; Y Ravindranath; F G Behm; M V Gresik; C P Steuber; H J Weinstein; A J Carroll Journal: Blood Date: 1999-12-01 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Todd M Cooper; Janet Franklin; Robert B Gerbing; Todd A Alonzo; Craig Hurwitz; Susana C Raimondi; Betsy Hirsch; Franklin O Smith; Prasad Mathew; Robert J Arceci; James Feusner; Robert Iannone; Robert S Lavey; Soheil Meshinchi; Alan Gamis Journal: Cancer Date: 2011-07-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: J F San Miguel; M B Vidriales; C López-Berges; J Díaz-Mediavilla; N Gutiérrez; C Cañizo; F Ramos; M J Calmuntia; J J Pérez; M González; A Orfao Journal: Blood Date: 2001-09-15 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: A Guerrasio; C Pilatrino; D De Micheli; D Cilloni; A Serra; E Gottardi; A Parziale; F Marmont; D Diverio; M Divona; F Lo Coco; G Saglio Journal: Leukemia Date: 2002-06 Impact factor: 11.528
Authors: Panagiotis D Kottaridis; Rosemary E Gale; Stephen E Langabeer; Marion E Frew; David T Bowen; David C Linch Journal: Blood Date: 2002-10-01 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Bert A van der Reijden; Annet Simons; Erna Luiten; Sonja C van der Poel; Pauline E Hogenbirk; Evelyn Tönnissen; Peter J M Valk; Bob Löwenberg; Georgine E De Greef; Martijn H Breuning; Joop H Jansen Journal: Br J Haematol Date: 2002-08 Impact factor: 6.998
Authors: Eric L Sievers; Beverly J Lange; Todd A Alonzo; Robert B Gerbing; Irwin D Bernstein; Franklin O Smith; Robert J Arceci; William G Woods; Michael R Loken Journal: Blood Date: 2002-12-27 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Ursula Creutzig; Martin Zimmermann; Michael N Dworzak; Brenda Gibson; Rienk Tamminga; Jonas Abrahamsson; Shau-Yin Ha; Henrik Hasle; Alexey Maschan; Yves Bertrand; Guy Leverger; Christine von Neuhoff; Bassem Razzouk; Carmelo Rizzari; Petr Smisek; Owen P Smith; Batia Stark; Dirk Reinhardt; Gertjan L Kaspers Journal: Haematologica Date: 2014-04-24 Impact factor: 9.941
Authors: Thomas Köhnke; Veit Bücklein; Sandra Rechkemmer; Stephanie Schneider; Maja Rothenberg-Thurley; Klaus H Metzeler; Maria-Cristina Sauerland; Wolfgang Hiddemann; Karsten Spiekermann; Marion Subklewe Journal: Haematologica Date: 2019-04-04 Impact factor: 9.941
Authors: V I Gaidzik; D Weber; P Paschka; A Kaumanns; S Krieger; A Corbacioglu; J Krönke; S Kapp-Schwoerer; D Krämer; H-A Horst; I Schmidt-Wolf; G Held; A Kündgen; M Ringhoffer; K Götze; T Kindler; W Fiedler; M Wattad; R F Schlenk; L Bullinger; V Teleanu; B Schlegelberger; F Thol; M Heuser; A Ganser; H Döhner; K Döhner Journal: Leukemia Date: 2017-06-23 Impact factor: 11.528