BACKGROUND: Minimal residual disease (MRD) assessment predicts survival for patients with newly diagnosed acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). Its significance in relapsed/refractory ALL is less clear. METHODS: This study identified 78 patients with relapsed/refractory B-cell ALL who achieved a morphologic response with inotuzumab ozogamicin (n = 41), blinatumomab (n = 11), or mini-hyperfractionated cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and doxorubicin plus inotuzumab (n = 26) during either salvage 1 (S1; n = 46) or salvage 2 (S2; n = 32) and had undergone an MRD assessment by multiparameter flow cytometry at the time of remission. RESULTS: MRD negativity was achieved in 41 patients overall (53%). The MRD negativity rate was 57% in S1 and 47% in S2. Among patients in S1, achieving MRD negativity was associated with longer event-free survival (EFS; median, 18 vs 7 months; 2-year EFS rate, 46% vs 17%; P = .06) and overall survival (OS; median, 27 vs 9 months; 2-year OS, 52% vs 36%; P = .15). EFS and OS were similar in S2, regardless of the MRD response. Among MRD-negative patients who underwent allogeneic stem cell transplantation (SCT), EFS and OS were superior for those who underwent SCT in S1 rather than S2 (P = .003 and P = .04, respectively). Patients in S1 who achieved MRD negativity and subsequently underwent SCT had the best outcomes with a 2-year OS rate of 65%. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with relapsed/refractory ALL who achieve MRD negativity in S1 can have long-term survival. Patients in S2 generally have poor outcomes, regardless of their MRD status. Cancer 2017;123:294-302.
BACKGROUND: Minimal residual disease (MRD) assessment predicts survival for patients with newly diagnosed acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). Its significance in relapsed/refractory ALL is less clear. METHODS: This study identified 78 patients with relapsed/refractory B-cell ALL who achieved a morphologic response with inotuzumabozogamicin (n = 41), blinatumomab (n = 11), or mini-hyperfractionated cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and doxorubicin plus inotuzumab (n = 26) during either salvage 1 (S1; n = 46) or salvage 2 (S2; n = 32) and had undergone an MRD assessment by multiparameter flow cytometry at the time of remission. RESULTS: MRD negativity was achieved in 41 patients overall (53%). The MRD negativity rate was 57% in S1 and 47% in S2. Among patients in S1, achieving MRD negativity was associated with longer event-free survival (EFS; median, 18 vs 7 months; 2-year EFS rate, 46% vs 17%; P = .06) and overall survival (OS; median, 27 vs 9 months; 2-year OS, 52% vs 36%; P = .15). EFS and OS were similar in S2, regardless of the MRD response. Among MRD-negative patients who underwent allogeneic stem cell transplantation (SCT), EFS and OS were superior for those who underwent SCT in S1 rather than S2 (P = .003 and P = .04, respectively). Patients in S1 who achieved MRD negativity and subsequently underwent SCT had the best outcomes with a 2-year OS rate of 65%. CONCLUSIONS:Patients with relapsed/refractory ALL who achieve MRD negativity in S1 can have long-term survival. Patients in S2 generally have poor outcomes, regardless of their MRD status. Cancer 2017;123:294-302.
Authors: H M Kantarjian; S O'Brien; T L Smith; J Cortes; F J Giles; M Beran; S Pierce; Y Huh; M Andreeff; C Koller; C S Ha; M J Keating; S Murphy; E J Freireich Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2000-02 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Gerhard Zugmaier; Nicola Gökbuget; Matthias Klinger; Andreas Viardot; Matthias Stelljes; Svenja Neumann; Heinz-A Horst; Reinhard Marks; Christoph Faul; Helmut Diedrich; Albrecht Reichle; Monika Brüggemann; Chris Holland; Margit Schmidt; Hermann Einsele; Ralf C Bargou; Max S Topp Journal: Blood Date: 2015-10-19 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: C Eckert; A Biondi; K Seeger; G Cazzaniga; R Hartmann; B Beyermann; M Pogodda; J Proba; G Henze Journal: Lancet Date: 2001-10-13 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Peter Bader; Hermann Kreyenberg; Günter H R Henze; Cornelia Eckert; Miriam Reising; Andre Willasch; Andrea Barth; Arndt Borkhardt; Christina Peters; Rupert Handgretinger; Karl-Walter Sykora; Wolfgang Holter; Hartmut Kabisch; Thomas Klingebiel; Arend von Stackelberg Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-12-08 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: E Coustan-Smith; A Gajjar; N Hijiya; B I Razzouk; R C Ribeiro; G K Rivera; J E Rubnitz; J T Sandlund; M Andreansky; M L Hancock; C-H Pui; D Campana Journal: Leukemia Date: 2004-03 Impact factor: 11.528
Authors: Li Ding; Timothy J Ley; David E Larson; Christopher A Miller; Daniel C Koboldt; John S Welch; Julie K Ritchey; Margaret A Young; Tamara Lamprecht; Michael D McLellan; Joshua F McMichael; John W Wallis; Charles Lu; Dong Shen; Christopher C Harris; David J Dooling; Robert S Fulton; Lucinda L Fulton; Ken Chen; Heather Schmidt; Joelle Kalicki-Veizer; Vincent J Magrini; Lisa Cook; Sean D McGrath; Tammi L Vickery; Michael C Wendl; Sharon Heath; Mark A Watson; Daniel C Link; Michael H Tomasson; William D Shannon; Jacqueline E Payton; Shashikant Kulkarni; Peter Westervelt; Matthew J Walter; Timothy A Graubert; Elaine R Mardis; Richard K Wilson; John F DiPersio Journal: Nature Date: 2012-01-11 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Nicola Gökbuget; Hagop M Kantarjian; Monika Brüggemann; Anthony S Stein; Ralf C Bargou; Hervé Dombret; Adele K Fielding; Leonard Heffner; Françoise Rigal-Huguet; Mark Litzow; Susan O'Brien; Gerhard Zugmaier; Shan Gao; Dirk Nagorsen; Stephen J Forman; Max S Topp Journal: Blood Adv Date: 2019-10-22
Authors: Terzah M Horton; James A Whitlock; Xiaomin Lu; Maureen M O'Brien; Michael J Borowitz; Meenakshi Devidas; Elizabeth A Raetz; Patrick A Brown; William L Carroll; Stephen P Hunger Journal: Br J Haematol Date: 2019-04-07 Impact factor: 6.998