MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417019321 · doi:10.1182/blood-2025-343

Validation of measurable residual disease as a surrogate endpoint in acute myeloid leukemia: A HARMONY Alliance study of European randomized trials

2025· article· en· W4417019321 on OpenAlexaff
Jesse M. Tettero, Sylvie Freeman, Richard Dillon, Jacqueline Cloos, Peter J.M. Valk, Konstanze Döhner, Michael Heuser, Christoph Röllig, Christian Thiede, Axel Benner, Luciana Carota, Daniele Dall’Olio, Ana García García, Alberto Hernández‐Sánchez, Sean Johnson, Javier Martínez Elicegui, Rabea Mecklenbrauck, Klaus H. Metzeler, Marta Sobas, Ian Thomas, Amin T. Turki, Laura Tur Giménez, Nigel H. Russell, Jurjen Versluis, Hartmut Döhner, Jesús María Hernández‐Rivas, Lars Bullinger, Gert J. Ossenkoppele

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Myeloid Leukemia Research
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Cancer Research
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSurrogate endpointClinical endpointClinical trialMinimal residual diseaseMyeloid leukemiaRandomizationRandomized controlled trialDiseaseCytarabine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction: Measurable residual disease (MRD) prior to consolidation therapy is a strong prognostic biomarker for relapse and long-term survival in acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Beyond its prognostic role, MRD is increasingly used to guide therapeutic decisions. A logical next step is regulatory acceptance of MRD as a (co-)primary endpoint in AML, as recently granted by the FDA for MRD in multiple myeloma. However, acceptance in AML is hampered by disease heterogeneity, variability in MRD assessments and a lack of trial-level validation. As MRD-guided treatment becomes more common, future trial outcomes may be confounded by such interventions. Thus, establishing MRD now as a surrogate endpoint is critical to enable accelerated drug approval in AML. Here, we evaluate both individual- and trial-level surrogacy of MRD assessed by multiparameter flow cytometry (MFC) and qPCR for mutant NPM1 using harmonized patient-level data from seven prospective randomized phase II/III trials. Methods: We included patient-level data from 1,858 adult with AML enrolled in trials conducted by AMLSG, HOVON-SAKK, SAL, and UK-NCRI, collected through the HARMONY Alliance. Eligible trials involved randomization to experimental or placebo treatment added to a standard intensive induction chemotherapy, with ≥20 patients per arm and per MRD subgroup. Patients were included if they had a MRD assessment after two chemotherapy cycles by either MFC or qPCR for mutant NPM1. Data were harmonized using the OMOP common data model. Following FDA guidance, we analyzed two levels of surrogacy. For individual-level surrogacy, we examined the association between MRD status and overall survival (OS) using Plackett’s copula models and multivariable Cox regression. For trial-level surrogacy, we quantified the relationship between treatment effects on MRD and OS using hazard ratios (HR) and odds ratios (OR) in weighted least-squares regression. A coefficient of determination (R²) >0.8 with 95% CI lower bound >0.6 was considered strong trial-level surrogacy, consistent with previously accepted surrogate endpoints. Subgroup analyses were conducted by MRD method and transplant status. Results: The included trials were AMLSG 09-09 (qPCR MRD assessment), three HOVON-SAKK trials (AML-102, AML-103, AML-132; all MFC), the SAL cohort (qPCR), and the UK-NCRI AML17 trial, which included two separate randomizations (both MFC- and qPCR-MRD). In multivariable analysis, MRD positivity was associated with significantly worse OS across the cohort (HR: 1.66, 95% CI: 1.33–2.07, p<0.001). This association persisted when stratified by MRD method or treatment arm (placebo vs experimental). The global OR for the association between MRD status and OS was 0.39 (95% CI: 0.32–0.47); among transplanted patients, OR was 0.61 (95% CI: 0.42–0.81), and among non-transplanted patients, 0.33 (95% CI: 0.25–0.41). Trial-level surrogacy analysis was limited to MFC-based MRD (n= 1,268) due to the limited number of qPCR-based trials. The overall R² between treatment effect on MRD (OR) and OS (HR) was 0.91 (95% CI: 0.56–1.00), suggesting strong surrogacy, though the lower confidence interval bound fell below the predefined threshold. When restricting to non-transplanted patients, R² increased to 0.99 (95% CI: 0.94–1.00), whereas among transplanted patients R² was 0.54 (95% CI: 0.00–1.00), suggesting that transplant may attenuate the association between MRD and OS at the trial level. Conclusions: This pooled analysis represents the largest MRD dataset in AML to date and demonstrates that MRD after induction is a robust individual-level predictor of OS, whether measured by MFC or qPCR for NPM1. MRD retained prognostic value across treatment arms and in multivariable models. These findings reflect strong individual-level surrogacy: MRD-negative patients were more than twice as likely to survive as MRD-positive patients, although this difference was less pronounced in transplanted patients, suggesting that allogeneic transplant may partially mitigate the adverse impact of MRD positivity. Importantly, trial-level surrogacy was confirmed for MFC-MRD in non-transplanted patients, supporting its use as an intermediate endpoint reasonably likely to predict long-term outcomes in intensively treated AML patients. As MRD-guided therapy and maintenance strategies become standard, this harmonized prospective dataset provides timely evidence to support MRD as a regulatory surrogate endpoint for AML drug development.

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)0.299
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.274
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.299
Threshold uncertainty score0.865

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2990.274
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.009
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.292 · 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.

Study designMeta-analysis
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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBloodSame topicAcute Myeloid Leukemia ResearchFrench-language works237,207