MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2908908514 · doi:10.1182/blood-2018-99-113090

Molecular Residual Disease Monitoring Provides Insufficient Lead-Time to Prevent Morphologic Relapse in the Majority of Patients with Core-Binding Factor AML

2018· article· en· W2908908514 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Robert Puckrin, Eshetu G. Atenafu, Jaime O. Claudio, Steven M. Chan, Vikas Gupta, Dawn Maze, Caroline McNamara, Mark D. Minden, Andre C. Schuh, Tracy Murphy, Hassan Sibai, Karen Yee, Tracy Stockley, Suzanne Kamel‐Reid, Aaron D. Schimmer

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2018
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueAcute Myeloid Leukemia Research
Établissements canadiensUniversity Health NetworkPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of Toronto
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMinimal residual diseaseMedicineInternal medicineBone marrowOncologyMyeloid leukemiaPathology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction Core-binding factor (CBF) acute myeloid leukemias (AML) are characterized by the chromosomal abnormalities t(8;21) or inv(16)/t(16;16) and their fusion proteins RUNX1/RUNX1T1 and CBFB-MYH11, respectively. Despite their relatively favorable prognosis, it has been reported that up to 45% of patients with CBF-AML relapse. Current guidelines recommend monitoring the peripheral blood (PB) or bone marrow (BM) for molecular evidence of residual disease (RD) every 3 months for 2 years following remission. By monitoring patients for rising molecular transcripts, those at risk of impending relapse can be identified and treated prior to the emergence of overt disease. However, the relapse kinetics of CBF-AML are poorly-understood, and it is unknown if serial RD monitoring can detect molecular relapses with sufficient lead-time to intervene and prevent morphologic relapse. Methods After local REB approval, we identified patients with CBF-AML treated at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre in Toronto, Canada between 2000 and 2017. Patients underwent induction and consolidation chemotherapy according to standard protocols followed by RD monitoring with polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) of RUNX1/RUNX1T1 or CBFB-MYH11 transcripts in a CAP/CLIA certified lab every 3 months for a median of 1.2 years (range 0-5.3). RD assessment was performed on BM aspirates, but PB could be tested in patients who could not tolerate repeat BM aspirates. Morphologic relapse was defined as emergence of >5% blasts in the PB or BM, and molecular relapse as a positive transcript PCR (if previous PCR measurements were undetectable) or an increase by 1 log (if previous PCR measurements were detectable) on 2 successive samples without morphologic relapse. Rapid relapse was defined as <100 days from molecular to morphologic relapse (i.e. timeframe insufficient to administer pre-emptive treatments such as allotransplant to prevent morphologic relapse). We extracted relevant clinical and cytogenetic data and performed unpaired t-tests and Fisher's exact tests as appropriate using GraphPad statistical software and version 9.4 of the SAS System for Windows (SAS Institute, Cary, NC). Results We included 114 patients with CBF-AML. Median age was 46.5 years (range 18-79). t(8;21) was present in 59% and inv(16)/t(16;16) in 41% of patients. All patients achieved remission with 7+3 induction chemotherapy. Over a median follow-up time of 3.7 years (range 0.2-14.3), RD measurements were performed a mean of 5 times per patient with mean sampling interval of 103±54 days. Remission was maintained in 71 (62%) patients but 43 (38%) developed morphological (n=34) or isolated molecular relapse (n=9), with median time to relapse of 4.4 months (range 1.4-31.4). Patients with relapsed disease were significantly less likely to have achieved ≥3 log reduction in RUNX1/RUNX1T1 or CBFB-MYH11 BM transcripts at the end of consolidation chemotherapy compared to patients who remained in remission (75% vs 90%, p=0.046). Of the 43 patients who relapsed, the majority (74.4%, n=32) had rapid relapse kinetics. Of these 43 patients, 25 received reinduction chemotherapy with achievement of CR2, 6 had refractory disease or death, 1 was lost to follow-up, and 17 went on to receive allotransplantation. RD monitoring enabled timely detection of impending relapse and permitted intervention prior to morphologic relapse in only 11 patients (25.6%). Among these 11 patients with slower relapse kinetics, 6 received reinduction chemotherapy with achievement of CR2, 2 received reinduction chemotherapy with refractory disease, and 8 went on to receive allotransplantation. Median overall survival was 20 months (range 3-128) for patients with rapid relapse kinetics and 28 months (range 14-166) for patients with slow relapse kinetics (p=0.02). Clinical features, BM vs PB RD measurements, additional molecular mutations, and cytogenetic abnormalities did not distinguish patients with rapid vs slow relapse kinetics. Conclusions Current guidelines recommend molecular RD monitoring every 3 months for CBF-AML. However, in the majority of patients who relapsed at our institution, RD monitoring every 3 months provided insufficient lead-time to identify molecular relapses prior to morphologic relapse. Further research is warranted to identify the patients with CBF at the highest risk of relapse and the best strategies to monitor these patients over time. Disclosures Gupta: Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding. Maze:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria. Schuh:Celgene: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Jazz: Consultancy; Amgen Inc.: Consultancy; Shire: Consultancy; Teva: Consultancy; Otsuka: Consultancy. Yee:Celgene, Novartis, Otsuka: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agensys, Astex, GSK, Onconova, Genentech/Roche: Research Funding. Schimmer:Otsuka Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Medivir AB: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

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)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
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 enseignants0,007
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,015

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0010,000
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 Opus0,022
Tête enseignante GPT0,282
Écart entre enseignants0,261 · 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

Citations1
Publié2018
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

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