| Literature DB >> 35745032 |
Piotr Obszański1, Anna Kozłowska1, Jakub Wańcowiat2, Julia Twardowska2, Monika Lejman3, Joanna Zawitkowska4.
Abstract
Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) accounts for approximately 15-20% of all childhood leukemia cases. The overall survival of children with acute myeloid leukemia does not exceed 82%, and the 5-year event-free survival rates range from 46% to 69%. Such suboptimal outcomes are the result of numerous mutations and epigenetic changes occurring in this disease that adversely affect the susceptibility to treatment and relapse rate. We describe various molecular-targeted therapies that have been developed in recent years to meet these challenges and were or are currently being studied in clinical trials. First introduced in adult AML, novel forms of treatment are slowly beginning to change the therapeutic approach to pediatric AML. Despite promising results of clinical trials investigating new drugs, further clinical studies involving greater numbers of pediatric patients are still needed to improve the outcomes in childhood AML.Entities:
Keywords: acute myeloid leukemia; pediatric AML; target therapies
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35745032 PMCID: PMC9230975 DOI: 10.3390/molecules27123911
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.927
Risk stratification based on molecular and cytogenetic abnormalities occurring in AML.
| Risk | Molecular and Cytogenetic Abnormalities | Frequency in Childhood AML | References |
|---|---|---|---|
| Favorable | 4–9% | [ | |
| t(15;17)(q24;q21); | 5–10% | [ | |
| t(8;21)(q22;q22); | 15% | ||
| inv(16)(p13q22) or t(16;16)(p13;q22); | 10–15% | ||
|
| 4% | [ | |
| t(16;21)(q24;q22); | 0.2% | [ | |
| Intermediate | del(7q) | 3% | [ |
| t(9;11)(p22;q23); | 6–9% | ||
| t(11;19)(q23;p13.1); | 1–2% | ||
| t(11;19)(q23;p13.3); | 1% | ||
| t(10;11)(p12;q14); | <1% | ||
| t(3;5)(q25;q35); | <0.5% | ||
| t(8;16)(p11;p13); | <1% | ||
| t(1;22)(p13;q13); | 0.3% | ||
| Adverse | Complex karyotype | 8–17% | [ |
| Monosomy 5, del(5q) | 1.2% | [ | |
| Monosomy 7 | 3% | ||
| 10–20% | [ | ||
| t(10;11)(p12;q23) or ins(10;11) (p12;q23q13); | 2–3% | [ | |
| t(6;11)(q27;q23); | 1–2% | ||
| t(4;11)(q21;q23); | - | [ | |
| t(9;11)(p21;q23) | - | ||
| t(5;11)(q35;p15); | 3–4% | [ | |
| t(11;12)(p15;p13) | 1–2% | ||
| t(7;12)(q36;p13); ETV6, MNX1 | 1% | ||
| inv(3)(q21q26.2) or t(3;3)(q21;q26.2); | 2% | ||
| t(6;9)(p22;q34); | <2% | [ | |
| t(16;21)(p11;q22); | 0.4% | [ | |
| inv(16)(p13q24); | 2–3% | ||
| t(9;22)(q34;q11); | 0.6% | ||
| Discussed | Monosomal karyotype | 3–5% | |
| Trisomy 8 | 10–14% | ||
| 7% | [ | ||
| <5% | |||
| No significance | Hyperdiploidy (48~49–65 chr.) | 11% | [ |
| According to cryptic CA or to mutations | Normal karyotype | 20–26% |
Pediatric AML treatment outcomes based on therapeutic protocols.
| Study Group | Study | Period | Patients | Probability of | Probability of 3-Years/5-Years EFS ± SD (%) | Relapses (%) | Early Deaths | Deaths from Toxicities | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AML-BFM | AML-BFM 2012 1 | 2012–2018 | 164 | 82 ± 3/nd | 69 ± 4/nd | 22 | [ | ||
| PPLLSG | AML-BFM 2012 1 | 2015–2019 | 131 | 75 ± 5/nd | 67 ± 5/nd | 17 | [ | ||
| COG | AAML1031 2 | 2011–2016 | 1097 | 65.4 ± 3.1/nd | 45.9 ± 3.2/nd | 47.2 ± 3.2 | nd | 11.85 ± 5.2% | [ |
| SJCGH | AML08 3 | 2008–2017 | 285 | 74.8/nd | 52.9/nd | 21 | nd | [ | |
| DCOG | ANLL-97/ | 1998–2002 | 118 | nd/57 ± 5 | nd/45 ± 5 | 45 | [ | ||
| AML-15 5 | 2002–2009 | 60 | nd/61 ± 6 | nd/49 ± 7 | 43 | ||||
| DB AML-01 6 | 2009–2014 | 67 | nd/72 ± 6 | nd/48 ± 6 | 43 |
Abbreviations: OS—overall survival; SD—standard deviation; EFS—event-free survival; nd—no data; AML-BFM—Acute Myeloid Leukemia Berlin-Frankfurt-Münster studies; PPLLSG—Polish Pediatric Leukemia and Lymphoma Study Group; COG—Childhood Oncology Group; SJCRH—St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital; DCOG—Dutch Childhood Oncology Group. Study therapeutic target:1 improvement of event-free survival in pediatric AML comparing the use of clofarabine and etoposide in the 1stinduction course; 2 whether the addition of bortezomib to standard chemotherapy improves the survival in pediatric patients with newly diagnosed AML; 3 to identify effective and less toxic therapy for children with AML by introducing clofarabine into the first course of remission induction to reduce the exposure to daunorubicin and etoposide; 4 to optimize the treatment for younger patients with acute myeloid leukemia and high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome by comparing the induction options and the number of consolidation courses and whether consolidation should include transplantation; 5 to assess three combinations of drugs (cytarabine, daunorubicin and etoposide with daunorubicin and cytarabine and fludarabine, cytarabine, granulocyte colony-stimulating factor and idarubicin; Gemtuzumab ozogamicin was added to each combination) in consolidation and induction and 6 to improve survival in pediatric de novo AML.
Figure 1Mechanism of action of the FLT3 and BCL−2 inhibitors. Midostaurin, gilteritinib and sorafenib by inhibiting the mutated type III receptor kinase cause the inhibition of STAT5 phosphorylation and deactivation of the Ras/Raf/MAPK and PI3K/Akt/mTOR pathways, suppressing tumor cell growth. Venetoclax binds to the BH3−binding groove of the BCL−2 protein. This causes the oligomerization and conformational change of BAX and BAK, leading to the formation of pores and mitochondrial outer membrane permeabilization, resulting in tumor cell death.
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval status of novel therapies for AML.
| Drug | FDA Approval for Any Indication | Year of FDA Approval in AML |
|---|---|---|
| Midostaurin | Yes | 2017 |
| Gilteritinib | Yes | 2018 |
| Sorafenib | Yes | - |
| Venetoclax | Yes | 2018 |
| Azacitidine | Yes | 2020 |
| Decitabine | Yes | - |
| Panobinostat | Yes | - |
| Pracinostat | No | |
| Gemtuzumabozogamicin | Yes | 2017 |
| Camidanlumabtesirine | No | |
| CAR T cells | Yes | - |
| BiTEs | Yes | - |
Outcomes of the phase III clinical trials of novel methods of AML treatment.
| Drug | Trial 1 | Variable Used for Outcome Assessment | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Median Overall Survival (Months) | Median Event-Free Survival (Months) | 5-Year Event-Free Survival (%) | 5-Year Relapse-Free Survival (%) | Complete Remission with Full or Partial Hematologic Recovery (%) | Median Relapse-Free Survival (Months) | ||
| Midostaurin | RATIFY | 74.7 vs. 25.6 2 | 8.2 vs. 3.0 2 | 45 vs. 34 | - | - | - |
| Sorafenib | SORAML | - | - | 41 vs. 27 2 | 53 vs. 36 2 | - | - |
| Gilteritinib | ADMIRAL | 9.3 vs. 5.6 2 | 2.8 vs. 0.7 2 | - | - | 34 vs. 15.3 2 | - |
| Venetoclax | NCT03069352 | 8.4 vs. 4.1 2 | 4.7 vs. 2 2 | - | - | 48 vs. 13 2 | - |
| Azacitidine | QUAZAR | 24.7 vs. 14.8 2 | - | - | - | - | 10.2 vs. 4.8 |
1 All trials performed on the adult population; 2 vs. chemotherapy + placebo.
Figure 2Mechanisms of action of epigenetic modifiers. Azacitidine and decitabine by inhibiting DNA methyltransferase reverse the aberrant hypermethylation of genes, which is a crucial epigenetic component of leukemic transformation. Pracinostat and panobinostat inhibit histone deacetylation, causing the re-expression of the genes involved in cell differentiation.
Figure 3Place of novel AML therapies in the treatment algorithm. Target Therapies I include: Gemtuzumab ozogamicin, midostaurin, sorafenib, venetoclax, azacitidine, decitabine, panobinostat and CAR-T. Target Therapies II include: midostaurin, gilteritinib, venetoclax, azacitidine, decitabine, pracinostat, panobinostat and Camidanlumab tesrine.