Outcome of Patients with Refractory Acute Leukemia Treated with a Third Induction Chemotherapy Regimen
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Abstract 4305 Background Treatment options are limited for refractory acute leukemia (AL) patients. Few data are available on the potential utility vs futility of a third course of induction chemotherapy. We have reviewed the characteristics and outcome of 35 patients treated with a third intensive induction course for refractory AL at our institution and other centers affiliated to the Quebec Leukemia Cell Bank (BCLQ). Methods and patients Adult AL patients who never achieved complete remission (CR) or who relapsed within 6 months after 2 consecutive induction courses and who received a third line intensive induction course between 2000 and 2010 were included in this study. Clinical, laboratory and treatment data were collected from hospital and/or BCLQ files. Outcomes were measured after the third induction course. Primary outcomes were achievement of CR/CRi, overall survival (OS) at 12 months and event-free survival (EFS), defined as the percentage of patients alive and leukemia free at 12 months. Secondary outcomes included median OS, median duration of remission for those obtaining CR and treatment related mortality (TRM) associated with the third induction course. OS was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and survival curves were compared using the Log-rank test. Alive patients were censored at their last follow-up. Results Thirty five patients met the inclusion criteria. The median age was 43 years old (20–62). Thirty one patients (89%) were diagnosed with AML and 4 patients (11%) with ALL or acute leukemia of ambiguous lineage. The median white blood cell count at diagnosis was 23 × 109/L (0.7–223). For AML patients, cytogenetics was favourable in 1 patient (3%), intermediate in 17 (55%) and adverse in 13 (42%). None of the 6 patients with normal karyotype for whom molecular characterisation was performed had a favourable genotype defined as NPM1 mutated without FLT3-ITD mutation. The patient with favourable karyotype had a variant t(8;21)(q22;q22) translocation without KIT mutation. Eighteen patients (51%) were primarily refractory to prior therapy and 17 (49%) had relapsed within 6 months of CR. The third line induction regimen consisted of cyclophosphamide and etoposide in 11 patients (31%), high dose cytarabine-based regimen in 10 (29%), mitoxantrone and etoposide in 7 (20%), fludarabine, cytarabine and idarubicin in 5 (14%) and other regimen in 2(6%). Patients with sustained remission after their third induction course were followed for a minimum of 12 months except for one patient alive and leukemia free at 6 months. Patients who were not in sustained remission have all been followed until death or transition to palliative care. CR after the third induction course was achieved in 6 patients (17%). At 12 months, OS was 11% and EFS was 6%. After the third induction, median OS was 5 months and median duration of remission was 6 months. Among 20 patients treated in our institution, the third induction TRM was 15% and median duration of hospitalisation, excluding patients who died in aplasia, was 38 days (20–70). Median OS was higher in the intermediate than in the adverse cytogenetics group (8 vs 2 mo, p=0.0008, figure 1) and in patients who achieved CR after third induction vs no CR (12 vs 4 mo, p=0.03). There was no difference in median OS between primary refractory and relapsed patients (8 vs 4 months, p=0.52). Allogeneic stem cell transplantation (SCT) was performed in 10 patients (29%) of whom 4 (40%) were in CR before transplantation. The only two long term survivors were in the allogeneic SCT group. Their percentages of blasts at transplant were 3 and 69 %. Conclusion Only two refractory patients are long term survivors and they share several features: non adverse cytogenetics, young age (20 and 23) and they underwent allogeneic SCT. Adverse cytogenetics impinges negatively on outcome, even in this highly refractory group of subjects. The prognosis of AL patients with persistent disease after 2 induction courses is extremely poor and represents a major unmet therapeutic need. Refractory patients with adverse cytogenetics were unsalvageable in this series. The best approach for patients not in CR after 2 inductions probably remains allogeneic SCT, when possible. We consider that in patients who cannot be offered an allogeneic SCT, administration of a third course of conventional chemotherapy is practically useless. These patients should be considered candidates for investigational treatments. Disclosures: Bergeron: Merck: Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria; Celgene: Research Funding.
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».