Maturing progenitor-like immunophenotypic cluster and megakaryocytic repopulating ability predict measurable residual disease in Acute Myeloid Leukemia

O Olivia Wilkins J Jonathan Andreadakis (2University of South Florida, College of Public Health, Tampa, United States) A Alexander Shkembi (2University of South Florida, College of Public Health, Tampa, United States) A Amy Wu (2University of South Florida, College of Public Health, Tampa, United States) J John Basile (2University of South Florida, College of Public Health, Tampa, United States) A Anna Krzeczowska (3Tampa General Hospital Cancer Institute, Leukemia Program, Tampa, United States) A Alexandra Thalberg (4University of Minnesota School of Medicine, Minneapolis, United States) L Linda Linderbeck (3Tampa General Hospital Cancer Institute, Leukemia Program, Tampa, United States) N Nidia Zapata (5Instituto de Cancerologia de la Ciudad de Mexico, Programa de Leucemia, Mexico, Mexico) M Marci O'Driscoll (3Tampa General Hospital Cancer Institute, Leukemia Program, Tampa, United States) S Suzane Silbert (3Tampa General Hospital Cancer Institute, Leukemia Program, Tampa, United States) T Tiphaine Martin (6Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, United States) A Anne Renteria (7New York University, Leukemia Program, Bone Marrow Transplantation Program, New York City, United States) M Maher Albitar (1Genomic Testing Cooperative, Lake Forest, United States) L Lacey Williams (University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, United States) J Jason Salemi (2University of South Florida, College of Public Health, Tampa, United States) A Amy Alman (2University of South Florida, College of Public Health, Tampa, United States) D David Swoboda (1Tampa General Hospital Cancer Institute, Tampa, United States) G Gustavo Rivero (3Tampa General Hospital Cancer Institute, Tampa, United States)

Abstract

Abstract Introduction: Regenerative bone marrow ability after myeloablative agents is directly correlated with Measurable Residual Disease [MRD] and quality of remission. Indeed, robust platelet count recovery after induction is independently associated with survival. Hemopoietic Stem Cells (HSC) may follow an alternative non-classical differentiation pathway in which megakaryocytes branch directly from HSC during marrow stress. Here, we examined whether the magnitude of megakaryocytic repopulating ability correlates with the Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML) immunophenotypic differentiation arrest, as defined by multiparameter flow cytometry (MFC). Additionally, we also evaluated laboratory and genomic features to enhance prediction of Measurable Residual Disease (MRD) response. Methods: After IRB approval, 125 AML cases were examined for post-induction megakaryocyte repopulating capacity in high power field (HPF). Megakaryocytes in post-induction bone marrow specimens were scored on a 0-4 [0= absent; 1= rare; 2= decreased; 3= adequate; and 4=increased]. AML cases were identified according to reported arrested differentiation algorithms based on flow cytometry antigen expression (e.g., CD34, CD117, HLADR, CD33/CD13 etc.). HSC-like, Common Myeloid Progenitor (CMP-like), Multipotent (MPP-like), Granulocytic Macrophage Progenitor (GMP-like) were assigned to hemopoietic progenitor cell group (HPC like), whereas Monocytic and Granulocytic progenitors (MP and GP, respectively) were assigned to Maturing progenitor like subgroup. Descriptive statistics, correlation coefficients, and logistic regression models were used to assess predictors of MRD. All analysis were conducted in SAS. Results: Median age was 68.5 years (25-93). By the European Leukemia Network 2022 (ELN22) classification, 9.3%, 21.2% and 69.3% of patients were favorable, intermediate and adverse risk. Superior complete remission (CR) plus complete remission incomplete (CRi) was observed in 53.4% of maturing-like vs 46.5% of HPC-like AML subtypes, p=0.06. Interestingly, in maturing like vs HPC-like subtypes, statistically significant CR+CRi was restricted to AML cases younger than 60 years,14/19 (74%) vs 5/19 (26%), respectively p=0.01. Given improved chemotherapy efficacy in maturing like subtypes, we examined potential predictors for MRD response. MRD was positively correlated with LDH (r=0.31, p=0.0034) and CD34 expression at diagnosis (r=0.26, p=0.02) but negatively correlated with post-induction megakaryocytic repopulating ability (r= 0.36, p=0.0048). In maturing-like vs HPC-like AML subtypes, FLT3, RAS, NPM1 and P53 mutations were observed in 34/49 (79%) vs 9/43 (21%), p=0.0002; 15/18 (83%) vs 3/18 (17%), p=0.006; 21/22 (95%) vs 1/22 (5%), p=<.0001; 10/29 (34%) vs 19/29 (66%), p=0.01. In multivariate analysis, higher megakaryocytic repopulating ability was associated with lower MRD (HR=-5.8, CI 95% -8.9, -1.12, p=0.01) and higher CD34 expression with higher MRD (HR=0.15, CI 95% 0.02, 0.28, p=0.03), even after accounting for ELN22 risk and age (ANOVA, p=0.0021). Conclusions: Our findings suggest that post-induction megakaryocytic reconstitution may serve as useful indicator of lower MRD burden, particularly among younger AML patients with maturing-like AML subtypes. Adequate megakaryopoiesis following chemotherapy may indicate the capacity of these cells to circumvent conventional lineage checkpoints to enhance hemopoietic reconstitution. Additional studies investigating the correlation between post-induction megakaryopoiesis, bone marrow regenerative ability and leukemia eradication are needed. Single cell multiomics analysis could unveil important insight in AML patients achieving robust post-induction megakaryopoiesis. This could allow improvement in MRD monitoring.

Article Details

Journal Blood
Volume / Issue Vol. 146, Issue Supplement 1
Published November 03, 2025
Pages 7049-7049
ISSN 0006-4971
Publisher Elsevier BV

Journal Info

Blood

Elsevier BV

ISSN: 0006-4971 Health Sciences

Authors (19)

O

Olivia Wilkins

J

Jonathan Andreadakis

2University of South Florida, College of Public Health, Tampa, United States

A

Alexander Shkembi

2University of South Florida, College of Public Health, Tampa, United States

A

Amy Wu

2University of South Florida, College of Public Health, Tampa, United States

J

John Basile

2University of South Florida, College of Public Health, Tampa, United States

A

Anna Krzeczowska

3Tampa General Hospital Cancer Institute, Leukemia Program, Tampa, United States

A

Alexandra Thalberg

4University of Minnesota School of Medicine, Minneapolis, United States

L

Linda Linderbeck

3Tampa General Hospital Cancer Institute, Leukemia Program, Tampa, United States

N

Nidia Zapata

5Instituto de Cancerologia de la Ciudad de Mexico, Programa de Leucemia, Mexico, Mexico

M

Marci O'Driscoll

3Tampa General Hospital Cancer Institute, Leukemia Program, Tampa, United States

S

Suzane Silbert

3Tampa General Hospital Cancer Institute, Leukemia Program, Tampa, United States

T

Tiphaine Martin

6Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, United States

A

Anne Renteria

7New York University, Leukemia Program, Bone Marrow Transplantation Program, New York City, United States

M

Maher Albitar

1Genomic Testing Cooperative, Lake Forest, United States

L

Lacey Williams

University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, United States

J

Jason Salemi

2University of South Florida, College of Public Health, Tampa, United States

A

Amy Alman

2University of South Florida, College of Public Health, Tampa, United States

D

David Swoboda

1Tampa General Hospital Cancer Institute, Tampa, United States

G

Gustavo Rivero

3Tampa General Hospital Cancer Institute, Tampa, United States