MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record 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 on 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

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Myeloid Leukemia Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMinimal residual diseaseMedicineInternal medicineBone marrowOncologyMyeloid leukemiaPathology

Abstract

fetched live from 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.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.261 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood→Same topicAcute Myeloid Leukemia Research→French-language works237,207→