PURPOSE: To quantify the residual marrow lymphoblast fraction that best defines patients at high risk for relapse, and the optimal time for assessment during remission induction. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The residual lymphoblast percentage was evaluated on day 7 (n = 220) and day 14 (n = 205) during a four- or five-drug induction in patients with poor prognostic factors. The rate of cytoreduction was related to event-free survival (EFS) and other factors. RESULTS: On the New York (NY) regimen, 68%, 14%, and 18%, and on the Berlin-Frankfurt-Munster (BFM) regimen, 56%, 15%, and 29% of patients had M1 (< 5% blasts), M2 (5-25%), or M3 (> 25%) responses on day 7 (P = .075). On day 14, the corresponding values were 87%, 6%, 7% on NY and 84%, 8%, 8% on BFM. For patients who achieved remission by day 28 and a day-7 marrow rating of M1, M2, or M3, the 6-year EFS rate was 78%, 61%, and 49% (P < .001). The day-14 ratings predicted for a 72%, 32%, or 40% EFS (P < .001). Patients with 5% to 10% blasts day 7 had three times as many events as those with less than 5% and had no better EFS than those with 11% to 25% blasts. Patients with a WBC count more than 200,000/microL at diagnosis and an M1 day 7 marrow had an EFS rate of 69%, while for those with M2 or M3, the EFS rate was 41%. Day-7 marrow had greater prognostic significance than the day-14 evaluation. For slow responders on day 7, the day-14 marrow provided additional information. EFS for patients who achieved M1 by day 14 was 65%. EFS decreased to 20% for those still M2 or M3 on day 14. Day-7 and -14 evaluations had significance for patients of all ages and WBC levels. CONCLUSION:Marrow aspiration on day 7 of therapy provided more useful information than that on day 14. However, day-14 marrow provided additional information for patients with a poor day-7 response. The rate of cytoreduction is a powerful, independent prognostic factor that can identify patients with a slow early response who are at risk for a short remission duration.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To quantify the residual marrow lymphoblast fraction that best defines patients at high risk for relapse, and the optimal time for assessment during remission induction. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The residual lymphoblast percentage was evaluated on day 7 (n = 220) and day 14 (n = 205) during a four- or five-drug induction in patients with poor prognostic factors. The rate of cytoreduction was related to event-free survival (EFS) and other factors. RESULTS: On the New York (NY) regimen, 68%, 14%, and 18%, and on the Berlin-Frankfurt-Munster (BFM) regimen, 56%, 15%, and 29% of patients had M1 (< 5% blasts), M2 (5-25%), or M3 (> 25%) responses on day 7 (P = .075). On day 14, the corresponding values were 87%, 6%, 7% on NY and 84%, 8%, 8% on BFM. For patients who achieved remission by day 28 and a day-7 marrow rating of M1, M2, or M3, the 6-year EFS rate was 78%, 61%, and 49% (P < .001). The day-14 ratings predicted for a 72%, 32%, or 40% EFS (P < .001). Patients with 5% to 10% blasts day 7 had three times as many events as those with less than 5% and had no better EFS than those with 11% to 25% blasts. Patients with a WBC count more than 200,000/microL at diagnosis and an M1 day 7 marrow had an EFS rate of 69%, while for those with M2 or M3, the EFS rate was 41%. Day-7 marrow had greater prognostic significance than the day-14 evaluation. For slow responders on day 7, the day-14 marrow provided additional information. EFS for patients who achieved M1 by day 14 was 65%. EFS decreased to 20% for those still M2 or M3 on day 14. Day-7 and -14 evaluations had significance for patients of all ages and WBC levels. CONCLUSION: Marrow aspiration on day 7 of therapy provided more useful information than that on day 14. However, day-14 marrow provided additional information for patients with a poor day-7 response. The rate of cytoreduction is a powerful, independent prognostic factor that can identify patients with a slow early response who are at risk for a short remission duration.
Authors: Roger S Riley; Michael Idowu; Alden Chesney; Shawn Zhao; John McCarty; Lawrence S Lamb; Jonathan M Ben-Ezra Journal: J Clin Lab Anal Date: 2005 Impact factor: 2.352
Authors: Peter G Steinherz; Nita L Seibel; Harland Sather; Lingyun Ji; Xinxin Xu; Meenakshi Devidas; Paul S Gaynon Journal: Leukemia Date: 2019-02-28 Impact factor: 11.528
Authors: Michael J Borowitz; Meenakshi Devidas; Stephen P Hunger; W Paul Bowman; Andrew J Carroll; William L Carroll; Stephen Linda; Paul L Martin; D Jeanette Pullen; David Viswanatha; Cheryl L Willman; Naomi Winick; Bruce M Camitta Journal: Blood Date: 2008-04-03 Impact factor: 22.113