Bone marrow biopsy characteristics at nadir after intensive induction therapy do not predict outcomes in acute myeloid leukemia (AML): An analysis of ECOG-ACRIN clinical trials

D Douglas Tremblay (3Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, Tisch Cancer Institute, New York, United States) L Li Chen Z Zhuoxin Sun (2Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, United States) C Chezi Ganzel (6Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Hadassah-Hebrew University Faculty of medicine, Jerusalem, Israel) H Hugo Fernandez (5Memorial Cancer Institute, Pembroke Pines, United States) J James Foran (6Mayo Clinic Comprehensive Cancer Center, Jacksonville, United States) D Daniel Arber (8University of Chicago, Chicago, United States) H Hillard Lazarus (6Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, United States) Y Yanming Zhang E Elisabeth Paietta (4Montefiore Medical Center, Moses Campus, Bronx, United States) J John Bennett (Department of Pathology) J Jacob Rowe (7Rambam Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel) M Mark Litzow (21Mayo Clinic, Rochester, United States) M Martin Tallman (5Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, United States) E Ehab Atallah (17Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, United States) S Selina Luger (14University of Pennsylvania/ Abrahmson Cancer Center, Philadelphia, United States)

Abstract

Abstract Introduction Nadir bone marrow biopsies (BM Bx) are routinely performed around day 14 to assess early response to AML intensive induction therapy. The presence of residual disease prompts initiation of reinduction therapy, often with another cycle of intensive chemotherapy. Whether there are characteristics of nadir BM Bx that predict for response to intensive reinduction is unknown. To evaluate this, we analyzed data from ECOG-ACRIN clinical trials in AML of intensive induction chemotherapy with nadir biopsy information available to determine predictors of outcomes after reinduction. Methods We included patients from ECOG-ACRIN E1900 (Fernandez NEJM 2009) and arm A of E2906 (Foran ASH 2015) who received induction therapy with daunorubicin and cytarabine (7+3), had residual disease (blasts ≥5% or cellularity ≥20%) at nadir BM Bx and received reinduction chemotherapy. Nadir BM Bx characteristics that were evaluated included blast percentage and cellularity as well as both absolute and relative (percentage change, e.g. 20% to 10% = -50%) differences calculated between diagnosis and nadir for each parameter. Complete remission (CR) after reinduction therapy, disease free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were outcomes for all analyses. Logistic regression models were used to evaluate associations with CR, and Cox proportional hazards models were used for DFS and OS. For models evaluating changes in blast percentage or cellularity as predictors, baseline blast percentage or cellularity was included as a covariate, respectively. Results Of 1013 patients identified, 750 (74%) had a nadir biopsy, 233 (23%) had evidence of residual disease, received reinduction therapy, and were included in the primary analysis. The median age was 58 and 42% were female. Cytogenetic risk category (by ELN2017) was adverse in 31%, intermediate in 66% and favorable in 3%. The median nadir BM Bx blast was 30% (range 0 to +97%) and cellularity was 20% (0 to +100%). The median absolute difference in blast percentage between baseline and nadir BM Bx was -15% (-95% to +66%) with a median relative difference of -36% (-100% to +400%). After reinduction, 118 patients (52%) achieved a CR. Neither absolute difference in blast percentage (OR 0.99, 95%CI 0.98-1.00, p=0.20) nor relative difference (OR 1.00, 95%CI 0.99-1.00, p=0.33) predicted CR. There was similarly no association with DFS (HR = 1.00, 95%CI: 0.99-1.01, p=0.65) or OS (HR = 1.00, 95%CI 0.99-1.01, p=0.76). Blast reduction ≥50% similarly did not predict these outcomes. We also evaluated the impact of any reduction in blast percentage (responders) from baseline to nadir and again found no association with CR (OR 1.65, 95%CI 0.90-3.03, p=0.11). Similarly, there was no association with DFS (HR 0.74, 95%CI 0.51-1.09, p=0.13) or OS (HR 0.81, 95%CI 0.58-1.13, p=0.21) in responders vs nonresponders. No association with CR, DFS or OS were identified when performing the same analysis in intermediate and adverse cytogenetic subgroups. We found no association with CR when nadir cellularity was assessed as a continuous variable (OR 0.99, 95%CI 0.98-1.00, p=0.10) or by relative difference (OR 0.99, 95%CI 0.99-1.00, p=0.10). There was a trend towards association with absolute reduction in cellularity from baseline to nadir and CR (OR 0.99, 95%CI 0.98-1.00, p=0.06). No association was identified between relative difference in cellularity and DFS and OS, nor was there an association among cytogenetic risk subgroups with any outcome. Discussion In intensively treated patients with residual disease at nadir BM Bx (i.e. day 14) who received intensive reinduction, the likelihood of achieving a CR was not influenced by the magnitude of disease reduction nor the extent of disease at the time of nadir biopsy. Similarly, there were no nadir biopsy features that predicted DFS or OS after intensive reinduction therapy. Given alternative reinduction therapies such as hypomethylating agents and venetoclax are available, these results suggest that the decision to attempt a second intensive induction cycle following the unequivocal presence of residual disease should not be influenced by characteristics of the nadir BM Bx. Although patient-specific factors such as patient fitness may favor a switch to less intensive options, these results support consideration of intensive reinduction therapy in patients with residual disease at nadir biopsy, even without changes in blasts or cellularity.

Article Details

Journal Blood
Volume / Issue Vol. 146, Issue Supplement 1
Published November 03, 2025
Pages 871-871
ISSN 0006-4971
Publisher Elsevier BV

Journal Info

Blood

Elsevier BV

ISSN: 0006-4971 Health Sciences

Authors (16)

D

Douglas Tremblay

3Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, Tisch Cancer Institute, New York, United States

L

Li Chen

Z

Zhuoxin Sun

2Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, United States

C

Chezi Ganzel

6Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Hadassah-Hebrew University Faculty of medicine, Jerusalem, Israel

H

Hugo Fernandez

5Memorial Cancer Institute, Pembroke Pines, United States

J

James Foran

6Mayo Clinic Comprehensive Cancer Center, Jacksonville, United States

D

Daniel Arber

8University of Chicago, Chicago, United States

H

Hillard Lazarus

6Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, United States

Y

Yanming Zhang

E

Elisabeth Paietta

4Montefiore Medical Center, Moses Campus, Bronx, United States

J

John Bennett

Department of Pathology

J

Jacob Rowe

7Rambam Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel

M

Mark Litzow

21Mayo Clinic, Rochester, United States

M

Martin Tallman

5Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, United States

E

Ehab Atallah

17Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, United States

S

Selina Luger

14University of Pennsylvania/ Abrahmson Cancer Center, Philadelphia, United States