Measurable residual disease (MRD) assessment as an early end point oftreatment efficacy in acute myeloid leukemia (AML): A pethema studyof 2,623 patients (Pts) treated with intensive therapy
Abstract
Abstract Background: Despite advances in treatment of AML pts considered fit for intensive therapy, significant unmet medical needs remain. Early end points for survival can accelerate the approval of novel therapies. MRD has been recently accepted as an early end point in other hematological malignancies, but important questions remain unanswered to support its acceptance in AML. Is multiparameter flow cytometry (MFC) more sensitive than the morphological definition of complete remission (CR)? Are MRD kinetics more prognostic than a single assessment? Are there genetic risk groups in whom MRD is not informative? Is the prognostic value of MRD independent of induction and consolidation therapy? Are MRD negative rates achieved with each therapy associated with different survival? Aim: Investigate the potential role of MRD assessed by MFC as an early endpoint for survival in AML pts treated with intensive therapy. Methods: The PETHEMA registry had 2,623 newly-diagnosed AML pts treated in routine practice and clinical trials, who had at least one MRD assessment at first CR using local MFC methods. Pts were mainly treated with 3+7 (n=2,160), followed by 3+7 plus a FLT3 inhibitor (n=137), FLAG-based regimens (n=97). Additional treatments included CPX-351 (n=59), 3+7+Etoposide (n=44), 3+7+GO (n=37), and others (n=89). Pts were stratified into low (CBF, n=348), intermediate-low (CEBPA/NPM1+ and FLT3-, n=392), intermediate-high (MRC 2010 intermediate or normal karyotype with FLT3- and NPM1-, n=738) and high (MRC 2010 high or FLT3+, n=784) genetic risk. Relapse-free (RFS) and overall survival (OS) were landmarked at the time of MRD assessment. Results: Of the 2623 pts in CR1, 1256 (48%) showed MRD ≥0.1% and 532 (20%) had MRD levels ≥0.01% - <0.1%. When compared to pts with <0.01% MRD (n=835, 32%), those with MRD levels ≥0.01% - <0.1% and ≥0.1% showed inferior RFS (medians of 35, 23 and 17, p<.001) and OS (medians of 94, 55 and 33 months, p<.001). Hence, the 0.01% cutoff was selected to define negative vs positive MRD status. Positive MRD was associated with inferior RFS (HR= 1.3, p<.001) and OS (HR= 1.4, p<.001). The respective global odds ratio estimated by the bivariate Plackett Copula model were 8.0 (95% CI, 5-16.7) and 9.8 (95% CI, 5.7-27.8), which indicates a strong correlation between MRD status at CR1 and survival outcomes. Of note, a sub-analysis in pts with ≥2 MRD assessments (n=322) showed that MRD kinetics are more prognostic than a single MRD test. When compared to pts with sustained MRD negativity and those having positive and negative MRD result, pts who were systematically MRD positive showed inferior RFS (median of 61, 48 and 16 months, p<.001) and OS (median 96 vs 105 vs 35 months, p<.001). In multivariate analysis adjusted for genetic risk and the different treatments, MRD status retained independent prognostic value for RFS (HR= 1.3, p<.001) and OS (HR= 1.3, p<.001). MRD status predicted different outcome in pts with genetic high-risk and was borderline significant in those with low-risk. By contrast, there were no differences in intermediate-risk groups, which could be partially associated with MRD-guided intensification. Accordingly, pts who were not transplanted showed different OS according to MRD status. By contrast, MRD status at CR1 was not prognostic in pts undergoing autologous or allogeneic transplant. The association between the treatment effect in MRD and survival was investigated in the three most frequent induction regimens. MRD negative rates were higher after 3+7 plus a FLT3 inhibitor vs 3+7 vs FLAG-based regimens (42% vs 31% vs 29%, p=.02). The higher MRD negative rates preceded longer RFS (median 32 vs 21 vs 14 months, p=.01) and OS (median 58 vs 47 vs 22 months, p=.01) with 3+7 plus a FLT3 inhibitor vs 3+7 vs FLAG-based regimens. Conclusion: MRD assessment by MFC proved to be more sensitive than CR and showed a strong patient-level association with survival. MRD negative rates achieved with each treatment were also associated with differences in survival. While these results qualify MRD as a potential early end point of treatment efficacy in AML pts considered fit for intensive therapy, attention should be paid to genetically-defined intermediate risk groups in whom MRD status may guide treatment decisions that could ameliorate the poor prognosis of positive MRD. MRD kinetics may be required to improve prognostication of such pts, particularly in those who are transplanted.
Article Details
Authors (60)
Bruno Paiva
Leire Burgos
12Clinica Universidad de Navarra, Centro de Investigacion Medica Aplicada (CIMA), Instituto de Investigacion Sanitaria de Navarra (IDISNA), CIBER-ONC number CB16/12/00369, Pamplona, Spain
Carmen González
Rebeca Rodriguez Veiga
2Hospital Universitari i Politècnic La Fe, Valencia, Spain
Antonio Solana-Altabella
Hospital Universitari i Politècnic La Fe; Dep. of Pharmacy, University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain
Pilar Lloret-Madrid
3Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria La Fe, Valencia, Spain
Evelyn Acuña-Cruz
2Hospital Universitario La Fe, Valencia, Spain
Cristina Gil
Hospital Alicante, alicante, Spain
Carmen Botella
Hematology Department. Hospital General Universitario Dr. Balmis, Alicante, Spain
Eduardo Rodríguez-Arbolí
Department of Hematology, Hospital Universitario Virgen del Rocío, Instituto de Biomedicina de Sevilla (IBiS/CSIC), University of Seville, Seville, Spain
Teresa Caballero
5Hospital Universitario Virgen del Rocio, Sevilla, Spain
Teresa Bernal del Castillo
Hospital Universitario Central de Asturias–Instituto Universitario del Principado de Asturias–Instituto Universitario de Oncología del Principado de Asturias, Oviedo, Spain
Maria Teresa Cedena Romero
11Hospital Universitario 12 de Octubre, Hematology, Madrid, Spain
Pilar Herrera Puente
16Hospital Ramón y Cajal, Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Claudia Sossa
23Clínica FOSCAL, Bucaramanga, Colombia
Josefina Serrano
University Hospital Reina Sofia. IMIBIC. UCO, Cordoba, Spain
Joaquin Sánchez-García
Hospital Universitario Reina Sofía, Córdoba, Spain
José Luis López Lorenzo
12Hospital Fundación Jiménez Díaz, Madrid, Spain
María-Belén Vidriales
13Hospital Universitario de Salamanca, Salamanca, Spain
Mar Tormo
Hospital Clinico Universitary. INCLIVA Research Institute, Valencia 46010, Spain
Monica Romero
22Hospital Guillermo Grant Benavente, Concepción, Spain
Mercedes Colorado
Hospital Universitario Marqués de Valdecilla, Santander, Spain
Celina Benavente
26Hospital Clínico San Carlos, Madrid, Spain
Juan Miguel Bergua Burgues
Hospital San Pedro de Alcántara. Cáceres, Caceres, Spain
Manuel Pérez-Encinas
19Hospital Clínico Universitario de Santiago, Santiago de Compostela, Spain
Lorenzo Algarra
37Complejo Hospitalario Universitario de Albacete, Albacete, Spain., Hematology Department, Albacete, Spain
Carlos Rodríguez-Medina
Hospital Universitario de Gran Canaria Dr. Negrín, Las Palmas De Gran Canaria, Spain
Dolly Viviana Fiallo Suarez
21Hospital Dr. Negrín, Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain
Raimundo García-Boyero
Hospital General Universitario de Castellón, Castellón, Spain
Luis Felipe Casado Montero
4Hospital General Universitario de Toledo, Toledo, Spain
Jorge Labrador
1Hospital Universitario de Burgos, Burgos, Spain
Manuel Barrios García
43Hospital Universitario Regional de Málaga, Málaga, Spain
Beatriz De Rueda Ciller
42Hospital Miguel Servet, Zaragoza, Spain
Marcela Espinoza
41Clínica Dávila, Santiago, Chile
Maria Jose Sayas Lloris
28Hospital Universitario Dr. Peset, Valencia, Spain
Diana Cuervo
39Hospital San José, Bogotá, Colombia
María Luz Amigo
17Hospital Morales Meseguer, Murcia, Spain
Jose-Mario Mariz
8Instituto Portugués de Oncología Francisco Gentil de Oporto, IPO, Oporto, Portugal
Karoll Giovanna Gomez Correcha
32Hospital Juan Ramón Jimenez, Huelva, Spain
Carmen Couto
33Hospital Nuestra Señora de Valme, Sevilla, Spain
Esther Perez
34Hospital Donostia, San Sebastián, Spain
Ágata Almela
38Hospital Universitario de León, León, Spain
Susana Vives
18Hospital U. Germans Trias i Pujol ICO Badalona, Badalona, Spain
Esperanza Lavilla-Rubira
27Hospital Universitario Lucus Augusti, Lugo, Spain
Olga Arce-Fernández
31Hospital de Basurto, Bilbao, Spain
Maria Teresa Olave Rubio
37Hospital Clínico U. Lozano Blesa, Zaragoza, Spain
Miguel López
Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red Fisiopatología de la Obesidad y Nutrición, Instituto de Salud Carlos III
Maria Dolores Madrigal
33Hospital U. Virgen de la Macarena, Sevilla, Spain
Lara María Gómez García
7Hospital Clínico de Valladolid, Valladolid, Spain
Sofia Grille
43Hospital de Clínicas, Montevideo, Uruguay
Sebastián Hidalgo
44Fundación Arturo López Pérez (FALP), Providencia, Chile
Daniel García Belmonte
45Hospital Sanitas La Zarzuela, Madrid, Spain
Maria Jose Garcia
46Complejo Hospitalario Torrecardenas, Almería, Spain
Maria Del Carmen Martinez Chamorro
6Hospital Universitario Quironsalud Madrid, Universidad Europea de Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Olga Salamero
13Hospital U. Vall D'Hebron, Barcelona, Spain
Amparo Sempere
Beatriz Martín Herreros
1Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria La Fe, Hematology, Valencia, Spain
Armando Mena Duran
25Hospital General de Valencia, Valencia, Spain
David Martinez-Cuadron
2Hospital Universitario La Fe, Valencia, Spain
Pau Montesinos
Hospital Universitari i Politecnic La Fe, Valencia, Spain