About this item:

50 Views | 15 Downloads

Author Notes:

Corresponding Author: Daniel Weisdorf, University of Minnesota, MMC 480, Minneapolis, MN 55455, Phone: 612-624-3101, Fax: (612) 625-6919, weisd001@umn.edu

See supplemental material for full list of author contributions.

The authors are grateful to the patients and to the medical and data management staff at the transplant centers who provided the data for this analysis.

The views expressed in this article do not reflect the official policy or position of the National Institute of Health, the Department of the Navy, the Department of Defense, Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) or any other agency of the U.S. Government.

One co-author (P. Hyare) is a Sunesis employee.

All others report no conflicts of interest in the study design or analysis.

Subjects:

Research Funding:

The CIBMTR is supported by Public Health Service Grant/Cooperative Agreement 5U24-CA076518 from the National Cancer Institute (NCI), the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI) and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID); a Grant/Cooperative Agreement 5U10HL069294 from NHLBI and NCI; a contract HHSH250201200016C with Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA/DHHS); two Grants N00014-15-1-0848 and N00014-16-1-2020 from the Office of Naval Research; and grants from Alexion; *Amgen, Inc.; Anonymous donation to the Medical College of Wisconsin; Astellas Pharma US; AstraZeneca; Be the Match Foundation; *Bluebird Bio, Inc.; *Bristol Myers Squibb Oncology; *Celgene Corporation; Cellular Dynamics International, Inc.; *Chimerix, Inc.; Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center; Gamida Cell Ltd.; Genentech, Inc.; Genzyme Corporation; *Gilead Sciences, Inc.; Health Research, Inc. Roswell Park Cancer Institute; HistoGenetics, Inc.; Incyte Corporation; Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC; *Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Jeff Gordon Children's Foundation; The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society; Medac, GmbH; MedImmune; The Medical College of Wisconsin; *Merck & Co, Inc.; Mesoblast; MesoScale Diagnostics, Inc.; *Miltenyi Biotec, Inc.; National Marrow Donor Program; Neovii Biotech NA, Inc.; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation; Onyx Pharmaceuticals; Optum Healthcare Solutions, Inc.; Otsuka America Pharmaceutical, Inc.; Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co, Ltd. – Japan; PCORI; Perkin Elmer, Inc.; Pfizer, Inc; *Sanofi US; *Seattle Genetics; *Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; St. Baldrick's Foundation; *Sunesis Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Swedish Orphan Biovitrum, Inc.; Takeda Oncology; Telomere Diagnostics, Inc.; University of Minnesota; and *Wellpoint, Inc.

The study was performed at the CIBMTR with partial financial support from Sunesis who had no independent part in the data collection, analysis or publication.

Keywords:

  • Science & Technology
  • Life Sciences & Biomedicine
  • Oncology
  • acute myeloid leukemia
  • allogeneic transplantation
  • complete remission
  • primary induction failure
  • relapse
  • STEM-CELL TRANSPLANTATION
  • BONE-MARROW-TRANSPLANTATION
  • ACUTE MYELOGENOUS LEUKEMIA
  • PRIMARY INDUCTION FAILURE
  • REFRACTORY ACUTE-LEUKEMIA
  • CHEMOTHERAPY
  • THERAPY
  • SURVIVAL
  • RELAPSE
  • DONOR

Allogeneic Transplantation for Advanced Acute Myeloid Leukemia: The Value of Complete Remission

Show all authors Show less authors

Tools:

Journal Title:

Cancer

Volume:

Volume 123, Number 11

Publisher:

, Pages 2025-2034

Type of Work:

Article | Post-print: After Peer Review

Abstract:

BACKGROUND: Patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) without complete remission (CR) or in first relapse (Rel1) can have extended leukemia control and survival after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT). For patients in Rel1 or primary induction failure (PIF), transplantation versus treatment to achieve a second CR (CR2) and subsequent HCT might yield similar outcomes, but available comparative data are scarce. METHODS: Survival was analyzed in 4682 HCT recipients according to disease status: PIF (N = 1440), Rel1 (failing ≥1 reinduction; N = 1256), and CR2 (N = 1986). RESULTS: Patient, disease, and transplantation characteristics were similar, except that patients in CR2 more often had performance scores of 90% to 100%, de novo AML, and longer CR1 duration. Adverse cytogenetics were more common in patients who experienced PIF. The 5-year survival rate adjusted for performance score, cytogenetic risk, and donor type for CR2 was 39% (95% confidence interval [CI], 37%-41%) compared with 18% (95% CI, 16%-20%) for HCT in Rel1 and 21% (95% CI, 19%-23%) in PIF (P <.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Although survival is superior for patients who undergo HCT in CR2, transplantation for selected patients in Rel1 or PIF may still be valuable. These data can guide decision making about additional salvage therapy versus prompt HCT for patients not in CR, but they also highlight that AML is intrinsically more treatable in patients who have favorable-risk cytogenetics, those with longer CR1 duration, and younger patients with better performance status. Cancer 2017;123:2025–2034.

Copyright information:

© 2017 American Cancer Society.

Export to EndNote