MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2567682454 · doi:10.1182/blood.v126.23.4978.4978

Discordance Between Morphologic and Cytogenetic Findings Following Induction Chemotherapy for Acute Myeloid Leukemia Is Prevalent in Patients with Bone Marrow Blasts >2% and Is Associated with Poor Clinical Outcomes

2015· article· en· W2567682454 sur OpenAlexaff
Lalit Saini, Joseph Brandwein, Irwindeep Sandhu

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2015
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueAcute Myeloid Leukemia Research
Établissements canadiensUniversity of Alberta
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineInduction chemotherapyInternal medicineAcute promyelocytic leukemiaBone marrowCytogeneticsChemotherapyLeukemiaMyeloid leukemiaBiopsyCytarabineChemotherapy regimenFludarabineMyeloidGastroenterologyOncologySurgeryCyclophosphamide

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract BACKGROUND: Following induction chemotherapy for Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML), patients in morphologic complete remission (mCR) with persistent cytogenetic abnormalities (PCA) have poor outcomes relative to those achieving a mCR without a PCA. Whether these patients have similar outcomes to those failing to achieve a mCR remains unknown. Furthermore, the reasons for the discordance between morphologic and cytogenetic findings have not been well described. To address these questions we conducted a retrospective review of AML patients treated at our centre. METHODS: All non-Acute Promyelocytic Leukemia AML patients from 2004 - 2014 were eligible for inclusion however patients with normal cytogenetics at diagnosis, those not evaluated for remission and those lacking post-induction cytogenetics were excluded. mCR was determined by the attending hematopathologists after review of the bone marrow aspirate (BMA), the bone marrow trephine biopsy (BMTB) with or without immunohistochemistry and/or flow cytometry for the detection of residual disease particularly in equivocal cases. RESULTS: Study criteria were met in 111 patients. Median age was 50 years (17.6 - 77) and 63% were males. Median white blood count at diagnosis was 5.5 x 109/L (0.4 - 307) and median BMB% was 56% (11 - 96%). Most (84%) had primary AML. Cytogenetics were favorable in 28%, intermediate in 41%, and unfavorable in 31% of the patients. Chemotherapy was anthracycline based in 88% and fludarabine based in 12% of patients. Post-induction, 94 patients (85%) had mCR (78 CR + 16 CR with incomplete count recovery, CRi) following induction, 18 (19%) of whom had a PCA and thus discordance between morphologic and cytogenetic findings. There was no difference in the rate of discordance in those age ≤60 vs. age >60 (18.8 vs. 20%, p=1.0), in those with secondary AML vs. primary AML (36 vs. 16%, p=0.13) or in those treated with an anthracycline vs. fludarabine regimen (21 vs. 9%, p=0.68). Discordance was 0%, 28% and 27% in those with favorable, intermediate and unfavorable risk cytogenetics, respectively (p=0.002). A CRi was associated with higher rates of discordance relative to those in CR (50 vs. 12.8%, p=0.002). When the effects of the quality of the BMA and BMTB on the rates of discordance was evaluated, higher rates of discordance were seen in patients with dilute BMA vs. those with non-dilute aspirates (75 vs. 16.7%, p=0.02) and in those with hypocellular BMTB vs. those with cellular/hypercellular/packed BMTB (43.8 vs. 14.7%, p=0.016). Patients with BMB% of >2% had higher rates of discordance vs. those with BMB% ≤2% (46 vs. 9%, p=0.0001) No difference in discordance rates was observed between patients whose BMA were aparticulate/pauciparticulate vs. those with particulate samples (33.3 vs. 16.5%, p=0.15), in those whose BMA samples were hypocellular vs. those that were cellular/hypercellular (20 vs. 16.4%, p=0.67) and in those who had suboptimal BMTB vs. those who had adequate vs. good/excellent samples (25 vs. 18 vs. 20%, p=0.89). In multivariate analysis only the BMB% >2% was associated with high rates of discordance (p=0.0002, odds ratio = 26) between morphologic and cytogenetic findings. The outcomes of patients in mCR with a PCA (n=18) were compared with those failing to achieve a mCR (n=17). The two groups had similar characteristics although patients in mCR with a PCA had a lower median BMB% post-induction vs. those not in a mCR (3 vs. 6%, p=0.004). Of the 18 patients in mCR with a PCA, 10 (56%) underwent an allogeneic stem cell transplant (SCT) while 8 of the 17 (47%) patients not in mCR, after additional chemotherapy, went onto a SCT. Rate of relapse following SCT was similar for those with mCR with PCA vs. those not in mCR (62.5 vs. 33.3%, p=0.35) as was time to relapse (651 vs. 1973 days, p=0.56, Fig 1A). The median overall survival was also similar for patients with mCR and PCA relative to those not in mCR (542 vs. 670 days, p=0.88, Fig 1B). Conclusions: Our results strongly reinforce the need to evaluate for persistent karyotype abnormalities post induction particularly amongst patients with BMB% >2%. Further prospective studies with larger cohorts are necessary to confirm our findings. Figure 1. Overall survival. mCR, morphological complete remission; PCA, persistent cytogenetic abnormality. Figure 1. Overall survival. mCR, morphological complete remission; PCA, persistent cytogenetic abnormality. Disclosures Sandhu: Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,001
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,004

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,003
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,034
Tête enseignante GPT0,321
Écart entre enseignants0,287 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2015
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBlood→Même sujetAcute Myeloid Leukemia Research→Travaux en français237 207→