Lene Sofie Granfeldt Østgård1, Bruno C Medeiros2, Henrik Sengeløv2, Mette Nørgaard2, Mette Klarskov Andersen2, Inge Høgh Dufva2, Lone Smidstrup Friis2, Eigil Kjeldsen2, Claus Werenberg Marcher2, Birgitte Preiss2, Marianne Severinsen2, Jan Maxwell Nørgaard2. 1. Lene Sofie Granfeldt Østgård, Mette Nørgaard, Eigil Kjeldsen, and Jan Maxwell Nørgaard, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus; Henrik Sengeløv, Mette Klarskov Andersen, and Lone Smidstrup Friis, The University Hospital Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen; Inge Høgh Dufva, Herlev University Hospital, Herlev; Claus Werenberg Marcher and Birgitte Preiss, Odense University Hospital, Odense; Marianne Severinsen, Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark; and Bruno C. Medeiros, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA. lenoestg@rm.dk. 2. Lene Sofie Granfeldt Østgård, Mette Nørgaard, Eigil Kjeldsen, and Jan Maxwell Nørgaard, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus; Henrik Sengeløv, Mette Klarskov Andersen, and Lone Smidstrup Friis, The University Hospital Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen; Inge Høgh Dufva, Herlev University Hospital, Herlev; Claus Werenberg Marcher and Birgitte Preiss, Odense University Hospital, Odense; Marianne Severinsen, Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark; and Bruno C. Medeiros, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Secondary and therapy-related acute myeloid leukemia (sAML and tAML, respectively) remain therapeutic challenges. Still, it is unclear whether their inferior outcome compared with de novo acute myeloid leukemia (AML) varies as a result of previous hematologic disease or can be explained by differences in karyotype and/or age. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In a Danish national population-based study of 3,055 unselected patients with AML diagnosed from 2000 to 2013, we compared the frequencies and characteristics of tAML, myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) -sAML, and non-MDS-sAML (chronic myelomonocytic leukemia and myeloproliferative neoplasia) versus de novo AML. Limited to intensive therapy patients, we compared chance of complete remission by logistic regression analysis and used a pseudo-value approach to compare relative risk (RR) of death at 90 days, 1 year, and 3 years, overall and stratified by age and karyotype. Results were given crude and adjusted with 95% CIs. RESULTS: Overall, frequencies of sAML and tAML were 19.8% and 6.6%, respectively. sAML, but not tAML, was associated with low likelihood of receiving intensive treatment. Among intensive therapy patients (n = 1,567), antecedent myeloid disorder or prior cytotoxic exposure was associated with decreased complete remission rates and inferior survival (3-year adjusted RR for MDS-sAML, non-MDS-sAML, and tAML: RR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.32; RR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.16 to 1.34; and RR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.32, respectively) compared with de novo AML. Among patients ≥ 60 years old and patients with adverse karyotype, previous MDS or tAML did not impact overall outcomes, whereas non-MDS-sAML was associated with inferior survival across age and cytogenetic risk groups (adverse risk cytogenetics: 1-year adjusted RR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.23 to 1.76; patients ≥ 60 years old: 1-year adjusted RR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.06 to 1.61). CONCLUSION: Our results support that de novo AML, sAML, and tAML are biologically and prognostically distinct subtypes of AML. Patients with non-MDS-sAML have dismal outcomes, independent of age and cytogenetics. Previous myeloid disorder, age, and cytogenetics are crucial determinants of outcomes and should be integrated in treatment recommendations for these patients.
PURPOSE: Secondary and therapy-related acute myeloid leukemia (sAML and tAML, respectively) remain therapeutic challenges. Still, it is unclear whether their inferior outcome compared with de novo acute myeloid leukemia (AML) varies as a result of previous hematologic disease or can be explained by differences in karyotype and/or age. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In a Danish national population-based study of 3,055 unselected patients with AML diagnosed from 2000 to 2013, we compared the frequencies and characteristics of tAML, myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) -sAML, and non-MDS-sAML (chronic myelomonocytic leukemia and myeloproliferative neoplasia) versus de novo AML. Limited to intensive therapy patients, we compared chance of complete remission by logistic regression analysis and used a pseudo-value approach to compare relative risk (RR) of death at 90 days, 1 year, and 3 years, overall and stratified by age and karyotype. Results were given crude and adjusted with 95% CIs. RESULTS: Overall, frequencies of sAML and tAML were 19.8% and 6.6%, respectively. sAML, but not tAML, was associated with low likelihood of receiving intensive treatment. Among intensive therapy patients (n = 1,567), antecedent myeloid disorder or prior cytotoxic exposure was associated with decreased complete remission rates and inferior survival (3-year adjusted RR for MDS-sAML, non-MDS-sAML, and tAML: RR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.32; RR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.16 to 1.34; and RR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.32, respectively) compared with de novo AML. Among patients ≥ 60 years old and patients with adverse karyotype, previous MDS or tAML did not impact overall outcomes, whereas non-MDS-sAML was associated with inferior survival across age and cytogenetic risk groups (adverse risk cytogenetics: 1-year adjusted RR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.23 to 1.76; patients ≥ 60 years old: 1-year adjusted RR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.06 to 1.61). CONCLUSION: Our results support that de novo AML, sAML, and tAML are biologically and prognostically distinct subtypes of AML. Patients with non-MDS-sAML have dismal outcomes, independent of age and cytogenetics. Previous myeloid disorder, age, and cytogenetics are crucial determinants of outcomes and should be integrated in treatment recommendations for these patients.
Authors: Kylee Maclachlan; Benjamin Diamond; Francesco Maura; Jens Hillengass; Ingemar Turesson; C Ola Landgren; Dickran Kazandjian Journal: Best Pract Res Clin Haematol Date: 2020-01-11 Impact factor: 3.020
Authors: Ibrahim Aldoss; Jianying Zhang; Raju Pillai; Geoffrey Shouse; James F Sanchez; Matthew Mei; Ryotaro Nakamura; Anthony S Stein; Stephen J Forman; Guido Marcucci; Vinod Pullarkat Journal: Br J Haematol Date: 2019-08-22 Impact factor: 6.998
Authors: Fan Zhou; Fen Zhou; Mengyi Du; Lin Liu; Tao Guo; Linghui Xia; Runming Jin; Yu Hu; Heng Mei Journal: Int J Hematol Date: 2019-08-22 Impact factor: 2.490
Authors: Mohammad Faizan Zahid; Aric Parnes; Bipin N Savani; Mark R Litzow; Shahrukh K Hashmi Journal: World J Stem Cells Date: 2016-08-26 Impact factor: 5.326
Authors: Hartmut Döhner; Elihu Estey; David Grimwade; Sergio Amadori; Frederick R Appelbaum; Thomas Büchner; Hervé Dombret; Benjamin L Ebert; Pierre Fenaux; Richard A Larson; Ross L Levine; Francesco Lo-Coco; Tomoki Naoe; Dietger Niederwieser; Gert J Ossenkoppele; Miguel Sanz; Jorge Sierra; Martin S Tallman; Hwei-Fang Tien; Andrew H Wei; Bob Löwenberg; Clara D Bloomfield Journal: Blood Date: 2016-11-28 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Prajwal Boddu; Hagop M Kantarjian; Guillermo Garcia-Manero; Farhad Ravandi; Srdan Verstovsek; Elias Jabbour; Gautam Borthakur; Marina Konopleva; Kapil N Bhalla; Naval Daver; Courtney D DiNardo; Christopher B Benton; Koichi Takahashi; Zeev Estrov; Sherry R Pierce; Michael Andreeff; Jorge E Cortes; Tapan M Kadia Journal: Blood Adv Date: 2017-07-19