Establishing contemporary benchmarks for Acute Myeloid Leukemia outcomes and measurable residual disease: Real-world data utilization from the ELN-david MRD international working group
Abstract
Abstract Background The treatment landscape of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is rapidly evolving due to advances in novel targeted agents, lower-intensity treatments, and allogeneic stem cell transplantation. Simultaneously, technologic advances are allowing increasingly sensitive detection of measurable residual disease (MRD) to guide treatment decision-making. However, our knowledge of AML patient characteristics, treatments, clinical outcomes and utility of multiparameter flow cytometry and molecular MRD techniques is primarily based on data from clinical trials. There is a need for real-world data to establish AML outcomes and MRD testing in routine practice. Thus, ELN-DAVID, an international European LeukemiaNet (ELN) working group focused on the assessment and validation of MRD in AML, launched the BENCHMARK initiative to establish a regularly updated platform for real-world clinical data and MRD assessment practices in ELN participating centers. Methods Centers provided de-identified, aggregated data from 100 or more unselected, consecutively seen patients with AML starting backwards from December 2022. Centers could include patients in clinical trials, if allowed by the clinical trial protocol. Descriptive data on patient characteristics, treatment strategies, response (morphologic and MRD) and survival were combined for collective analysis. As pooled survival analysis was not possible, the range of the median survival between centers is reported. European LeukemiaNet risk classification is defined as either the 2017 or 2022 version, depending on what the center used and entered. Results To date, data were provided for 1457 patients from 14 international centers treated between 2016 and 2022. Of these patients, 801 (55%) were male and a total of 974 (68%) patients received intensive chemotherapy, 323 (23%) non-intensive treatment, and 136 (9%) supportive care only. Across all treatment groups, most patients were not treated on clinical trials (86%), targeted (gemtuzumab-ozogamicin, FLT3 or IDH inhibitors) treatment was given to 36%, and the majority underwent allogeneic stem cell transplantation (64%). In patients treated with intensive chemotherapy the ELN risk group was 33% favorable, 29% intermediate, and 38% adverse. Of the non-intensively treated patients, most received venetoclax-based therapy (62%). Response evaluations showed complete remission (CR), or CR with incomplete count recovery (CRi) or CR with incomplete platelet recovery (CRp) in 80% of patients that were treated with intensive chemotherapy and in 54% of patients that received non-intensive treatment. Median follow-up time ranges from 4 months to 51 months and the median overall survival in each of the intensively treated ELN risk categories ranges from 16 months to not reached (NR), 8 months to NR, and 5.5 months to NR for favorable, intermediate and adverse risk patients, respectively. MRD data were available for 598 (61%) intensively treated patients after 2 cycles of treatment, 360 (37%) at the end of treatment and 295 (30%) during follow-up. Flow cytometry was the most frequently used MRD technology across all time points (cycle 2: 76%; end of treatment: 64%; follow-up: 62%), followed by quantitative PCR (cycle 2: 40%; end of treatment: 48%; follow-up: 43%). Next-generation sequencing was performed in 8% of patients after two cycles, 12% at end of treatment and 16% during follow-up. Among non-intensively treated patients, 107 (33%) had MRD data available, the majority (73%) was analyzed by flow cytometry. Conclusions The survival data from BENCHMARK-2025, reflecting international practices, are comparable to those expected from recent AML clinical trials. Most centers performed MRD assessment using flow cytometry for patients treated with intensive chemotherapy. MRD was infrequently performed in non-intensively treated patients. A standardized database has been developed to allow future analyses of individual patient data. It is anticipated that data will be updated regularly, giving the opportunity to construct synthetic control cohorts, allowing longitudinal correlation between evolving MRD practices and AML outcomes, and serving as benchmark for contemporary experience.
Article Details
Authors (28)
Gail Roboz
3Weill Cornell Medicine and The New York Presbyterian Hospital, New York, United States
Tom Reuvekamp
1Department of Hematology, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Jacqueline Cloos
1Department of Hematology, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Malte von Bonin
4Department of Internal Medicine I, University Hospital Dresden, Dresden University of Technology, Dresden, Germany
Francesco Buccisano
23Department of Biomedicine and Prevention, University of Rome tor Vergata, Rome, Italy
Lukas Haaksma
2Amsterdam UMC location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of Hematology, Amsterdam, Netherlands
Maura Ikoma-Colturato
7Hospital Amaral Carvalho, Jaú-Sao Paulo, Brazil
Joana Brioso Infante
14Hospital de Santa Maria, Lisboa, Portugal
Dennis Kim
1Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
Chrysavgi Lalayanni
10G. Papanikolaou Hospital, Thessaloniki, Greece
David de Leeuw
1Department of Hematology, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Josephine Anne Lucero
1Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Division of Medical Oncology and Hematology, Toronto, Canada
Francesco Mannelli
1SOD Ematologia, Università di Firenze, AOU Careggi, Firenze, Italy
Luca Maurillo
23Department of Biomedicine and Prevention, University of Rome tor Vergata, Rome, Italy
FEDERICO MORETTI
16Università degli Studi di Roma “Tor Vergata”, Dipartimento di Biomedicina e Prevenzione, Roma, Italy., ROME, Italy
Josep F Nomdedeu Guinot
12Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, Institut de Recerca Sant Pau, Barcelona, Spain
Apostolia Papalexandri
10G. Papanikolaou Hospital, Thessaloniki, Greece
Guillermo Ramil López
3Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau. Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona and IIB Sant Pau, Hematology Department, Barcelona, Spain
Maximilian Röhnert
5Universitätsklinikum Carl Gustav Carus, TU Dresden, Medizinische Klinik I, Dresden, Germany
Christoph Röllig
22Department of Internal Medicine I, University Hospital TU Dresden, Dresden, Germany
Anderson João Simione
7Hospital Amaral Carvalho, Jaú-Sao Paulo, Brazil
Daniela Späth
1Department of Internal Medicine III, University Hospital of Ulm, Ulm, Germany
Felicitas R Thol
9Hannover Medical School, Department of Hematology, Hemostasis, Oncology, and Stem Cell Transplantation, Hannover, Germany
Anne Tierens
21Laboratory Medicine Program, University Health Network and University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
Adriano Venditti
23Department of Biomedicine and Prevention, University of Rome tor Vergata, Rome, Italy
Francois Vergez
3Centre de Recherches en Cancérologie de Toulouse, Université de Toulouse, INSERM U1037, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique U5077, Toulouse, France
Michael Heuser
Konstanze Döhner
12University Hospital of Ulm, Ulm, Germany