PURPOSE: The decision to re-induce patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) based on results of the day 14 bone marrow (BM) biopsy is variable and lacks evidence based data. The aim of our review was to evaluate the accuracy of a day 14 BM biopsy in determining the need for re-induction chemotherapy. METHODS: Seventy-four patients with newly diagnosed de novo AML treated with induction chemotherapy were retrospectively reviewed for the purpose of evaluating treatment decisions and outcomes based on their day 14 BM biopsy. Response to therapy in this analysis was based on morphology alone. RESULTS: Of the 74 patients undergoing standard induction, 45 patients (61%) had no evidence of leukemia on their day 14 BM biopsy. Eighteen patients (24%) had definitive residual disease (RD), and 11 patient's (15%) were classified as indeterminate response (IR). Fifteen patients with RD and one with IR underwent re-induction chemotherapy. However, thirteen patients (3 RD and 10 IR) were observed until count recovery without any re-induction therapy. Eleven of these 13 patients who were observed eventually attained a morphologic complete remission (CR), including two patients with RD. CONCLUSIONS: A day 14 BM biopsy may have suboptimal sensitivity for the detection of residual leukemia. Some patients with an IR on day 14 may not require re-induction chemotherapy, but instead, may benefit from careful observation until count recovery to avoid the mortality and morbidity associated with re-induction chemotherapy.
PURPOSE: The decision to re-induce patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) based on results of the day 14 bone marrow (BM) biopsy is variable and lacks evidence based data. The aim of our review was to evaluate the accuracy of a day 14 BM biopsy in determining the need for re-induction chemotherapy. METHODS: Seventy-four patients with newly diagnosed de novo AML treated with induction chemotherapy were retrospectively reviewed for the purpose of evaluating treatment decisions and outcomes based on their day 14 BM biopsy. Response to therapy in this analysis was based on morphology alone. RESULTS: Of the 74 patients undergoing standard induction, 45 patients (61%) had no evidence of leukemia on their day 14 BM biopsy. Eighteen patients (24%) had definitive residual disease (RD), and 11 patient's (15%) were classified as indeterminate response (IR). Fifteen patients with RD and one with IR underwent re-induction chemotherapy. However, thirteen patients (3 RD and 10 IR) were observed until count recovery without any re-induction therapy. Eleven of these 13 patients who were observed eventually attained a morphologic complete remission (CR), including two patients with RD. CONCLUSIONS: A day 14 BM biopsy may have suboptimal sensitivity for the detection of residual leukemia. Some patients with an IR on day 14 may not require re-induction chemotherapy, but instead, may benefit from careful observation until count recovery to avoid the mortality and morbidity associated with re-induction chemotherapy.
Authors: Jacob M Rowe; Haesook T Kim; Peter A Cassileth; Hillard M Lazarus; Mark R Litzow; Peter H Wiernik; Martin S Tallman Journal: Cancer Date: 2010-11-01 Impact factor: 6.860
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: Bruce D Cheson; John M Bennett; Kenneth J Kopecky; Thomas Büchner; Cheryl L Willman; Elihu H Estey; Charles A Schiffer; Hartmut Doehner; Martin S Tallman; T Andrew Lister; Francesco Lo-Coco; Roel Willemze; Andrea Biondi; Wolfgang Hiddemann; Richard A Larson; Bob Löwenberg; Miguel A Sanz; David R Head; Ryuzo Ohno; Clara D Bloomfield; Francesco LoCocco Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2003-12-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Arati V Rao; Peter J M Valk; Klaus H Metzeler; Chaitanya R Acharya; Sascha A Tuchman; Marvaretta M Stevenson; David A Rizzieri; Ruud Delwel; Christian Buske; Stefan K Bohlander; Anil Potti; Bob Löwenberg Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-10-26 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Wolfgang Kern; Torsten Haferlach; Claudia Schoch; Helmut Loffler; Winfried Gassmann; Achim Heinecke; Maria Christina Sauerland; Wolfgang Berdel; Thomas Buchner; Wolfgang Hiddemann Journal: Blood Date: 2002-06-28 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: John C Byrd; Krzysztof Mrózek; Richard K Dodge; Andrew J Carroll; Colin G Edwards; Diane C Arthur; Mark J Pettenati; Shivanand R Patil; Kathleen W Rao; Michael S Watson; Prasad R K Koduru; Joseph O Moore; Richard M Stone; Robert J Mayer; Eric J Feldman; Frederick R Davey; Charles A Schiffer; Richard A Larson; Clara D Bloomfield Journal: Blood Date: 2002-08-01 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: T Yezefski; H Xie; R Walter; J Pagel; P S Becker; P Hendrie; V Sandhu; K Shannon-Dorcy; J Abkowitz; F R Appelbaum; E Estey Journal: Leukemia Date: 2014-09-10 Impact factor: 11.528
Authors: Joshua F Zeidner; Matthew C Foster; Amanda L Blackford; Mark R Litzow; Lawrence E Morris; Stephen A Strickland; Jeffrey E Lancet; Prithviraj Bose; M Yair Levy; Raoul Tibes; Ivana Gojo; Christopher D Gocke; Gary L Rosner; Richard F Little; John J Wright; L Austin Doyle; B Douglas Smith; Judith E Karp Journal: Haematologica Date: 2015-05-28 Impact factor: 9.941
Authors: Annachiara Dozzo; Aoife Galvin; Jae-Won Shin; Santo Scalia; Caitriona M O'Driscoll; Katie B Ryan Journal: Drug Deliv Transl Res Date: 2022-08-05 Impact factor: 5.671
Authors: Kavya K Kannan; Paz Vellanki; Scott Isom; Bernard Tawfik; Allison Winter; Heidi D Klepin; Leslie R Ellis; Rupali Roy Bhave; Dianna Howard; Megan Manuel; Sarah Dralle; Susan Lyerly; Bayard L Powell; Timothy S Pardee Journal: Leuk Res Date: 2021-10-21 Impact factor: 3.156
Authors: Hong Yuen Wong; Anthony D Sung; Katherine E Lindblad; Sheenu Sheela; Gregory W Roloff; David Rizzieri; Meghali Goswami; Matthew P Mulé; Nestor R Ramos; Jingrong Tang; Julie Thompson; Christin B DeStefano; Kristi Romero; Laura W Dillon; Dong-Yun Kim; Catherine Lai; Christopher S Hourigan Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2019-01-15 Impact factor: 6.244