MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4417013395 · doi:10.1182/blood-2025-1738

Outcomes following MRD relapse in AML patients monitored by droplet digital PCR

2025· article· en· W4417013395 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Bo Wan, Curtis Hughesman, Yasser Abou Mourad, Shanee Chung, Donna Forrest, Florian Kuchenbauer, Stephen H. Nantel, Sujaatha Narayanan, Thomas J. Nevill, Hannah Cherniawsky, Judith Anula Rodrigo, Aly Karsan, Sean D. Young, Kevin Song, Ryan J. Stubbins, Cynthia L. Toze, Jennifer White, Claudie Roy, David Sanford

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2025
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueAcute Myeloid Leukemia Research
Établissements canadiensCanada's Michael Smith Genome Sciences CentreLeukemia & Lymphoma Society of CanadaUniversity of British Columbia
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMyeloid leukemiaMinimal residual diseaseLeukemiaInduction chemotherapyBone marrowNPM1ChemotherapyChemotherapy regimenCancer

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction: European Leukemia Network (ELN) guidelines recommend PCR-based measurable residual disease (MRD) monitoring for patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) with NPM1 mutation (NPM1mut), t(8;21)/RUNX1::RUNX1T1 or inv(16)/CBFB::MYH11 during and after treatment. This may enable early detection of MRD relapse and intervention prior to morphologic relapse. MRD testing for these AML subtypes has been performed for patients treated at the Leukemia and Bone Marrow Transplant (L/BMT) Program of British Columbia (BC) since 2022. We analyzed patient outcomes following MRD relapse and treatment in this patient cohort. Methods: A retrospective study was conducted on consecutive adult patients in BC, Canada diagnosed with AML between April 2022 and October 2024 who received frontline intensive chemotherapy and had ≥2 MRD measurements. Patients not achieving complete response (CR)/CR with incomplete count recovery (CRi) or those receiving non-intensive therapy were excluded. MRD testing was performed by the Cancer Genetic and Genomics Laboratory, BC Cancer using droplet digital PCR (ddPCR). The routine limit of reliable detection for the assay is 10-4.5 or better. Frequency of monitoring followed ELN 2021 guidelines with monthly peripheral blood testing post-consolidation or stem cell transplant (SCT). Overall survival (OS) was defined from date of diagnosis to date of death. MRD relapse was defined as a conversion from a negative to detectable MRD, or an increase of MRD ≥1 order of magnitude (≥1log10). Survival analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier survival estimator and the log-rank test was used to test for differences. Results: Among 97 patients who met inclusion criteria, the median age at diagnosis was 57 years (range 19-72); 55 (57%) were male. There were 75 (75%) patients with NPM1mut, 16 (17%) with inv(16), and 6 (6%) with t(8;21). Based on ELN 2022 criteria, 68 (70%) were favourable risk, 28 (29%) intermediate risk, and one (1%) adverse risk. Forty-one (42%) patients underwent allogeneic SCT (alloSCT) in CR1, 8 (8%) in CR2; one had autologous (auto) SCT in CR1. Median follow-up was 22 months (range 4.5-65). The 1-, 2-, and 3-year OS was 94%, 93%, and 71% respectively, with no significant OS difference among AML subtypes. Twenty-two (23%) patients had MRD relapse after chemotherapy, with a median time from CR/CRi to MRD relapse of 7.7 months (range 2-24). Sixteen (73%) received pre-emptive treatment: intermediate or high dose cytarabine (INDAC/HIDAC) (n=11), azacitidine (n=2), azacitidine + venetoclax (n=2), and FLAG-Ida (n=1); 15 (68%) later underwent SCT (14 allo, 1 auto). The overall response rate (ORR) to pre-emptive treatment among the 14 patients evaluable for MRD was 50% (MRD negative [n=2], ≥ 3 log10 reduction [n=2], 1-3 log10 reduction [n=3]). One patient relapsed post-treatment (alloHSCT) and died. Among 15 patients without relapse, 14 remain alive. Among 6 patients not receiving pre-emptive therapy, 3 relapsed and died. Median OS of patients with MRD relapse after chemotherapy was not reached; the 1- and 2-year OS was 95% and 67% respectively. The 2-year OS was higher with pre-emptive treatment vs. no treatment group (80% vs. 27%, p=0.012). Thirteen patients had MRD relapse post-alloSCT with a median time from alloSCT to MRD relapse of 5 months (range 2-15). Twelve patients received pre-emptive therapy: azacitidine (n=1), azacitidine + donor lymphocyte infusion (DLI, n=4), azacitidine + venetoclax + DLI (n=1), withdrawal of immunosuppression (n=2), and gilteritinib (n=4). The ORR was 60% among 10 patients with evaluable MRD responses (MRD negative [n=5], ≥ 3 log10 reduction [n=1]). Three patients relapsed post-treatment and died; 8 of the remaining 9 relapse-free patients remain alive. One patient with MRD relapse post-alloSCT received no therapy and died after morphologic relapse. The median OS of patients with MRD relapse after transplant was not reached and the 1- and 2-year OS was 84% and 65% respectively. For the entire cohort, patients with initial MRD relapse had significantly longer OS compared to those with morphologic relapse without prior MRD relapse (p=0.004). Conclusion: Our results suggest that ddPCR-based MRD monitoring per ELN guidelines allows for pre-emptive treatment in most patients. Early results suggest patients receiving treatment for MRD relapse had favorable outcomes compared to those untreated or those with morphologic relapse without prior MRD relapse.

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 enseignants0,013
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,026

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
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
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 Opus0,008
Tête enseignante GPT0,275
Écart entre enseignants0,267 · 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
Publié2025
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

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