Cargando…

Distinguishing AML from MDS: a fixed blast percentage may no longer be optimal

Patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) have conventionally received more intense therapy than patients with myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS). Although less intense therapies are being used more often in AML, the dichotomy between AML and MDS remains, with the presence of ≥20% myeloblasts in marrow...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Estey, Elihu, Hasserjian, Robert P., Döhner, Hartmut
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: American Society of Hematology 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8832464/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34111285
http://dx.doi.org/10.1182/blood.2021011304
_version_ 1784648728592777216
author Estey, Elihu
Hasserjian, Robert P.
Döhner, Hartmut
author_facet Estey, Elihu
Hasserjian, Robert P.
Döhner, Hartmut
author_sort Estey, Elihu
collection PubMed
description Patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) have conventionally received more intense therapy than patients with myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS). Although less intense therapies are being used more often in AML, the dichotomy between AML and MDS remains, with the presence of ≥20% myeloblasts in marrow or peripheral blood generally regarded as defining AML. Consequently, patients with 19% blasts are typically ineligible for AML studies, and patients with 21% blasts are ineligible for MDS studies. Here we cite biologic and clinical data to question this practice. Biologically, abnormalities in chromosome 3q26 and mutations in NPM1 and FLT3, regarded as AML associated, also occur in MDS. The genetic signatures of MDS, particularly cases with 10% to 19% blasts (MDS-EB2), resemble those of AML following a preceding MDS (secondary AML). Mutationally, secondary AML appears at least as similar to MDS-EB2 as to de novo AML. Patients presenting with de novo AML but with secondary-type AML mutations seem to have the same poor prognosis associated with clinically defined secondary AML. Seattle data indicate that after accounting for European LeukemiaNet 2017 risk, age, performance status, clinically secondary AML, and treatment including allogeneic transplantation, patients with World Health Organization–defined AML (n = 769) have similar rates of overall survival, event-free survival, and complete remission (CR)/CR with incomplete hematologic recovery as patients with MDS-EB2 (n = 202). We suggest defining patients with 10% to 30% blasts (AML/MDS) as eligible for both AML and MDS studies. This would permit empiric testing of the independent effect of blast percentage on outcome, allow patients access to more therapies, and potentially simplify the regulatory approval process.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8832464
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher American Society of Hematology
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-88324642022-03-02 Distinguishing AML from MDS: a fixed blast percentage may no longer be optimal Estey, Elihu Hasserjian, Robert P. Döhner, Hartmut Blood Perspective Patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) have conventionally received more intense therapy than patients with myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS). Although less intense therapies are being used more often in AML, the dichotomy between AML and MDS remains, with the presence of ≥20% myeloblasts in marrow or peripheral blood generally regarded as defining AML. Consequently, patients with 19% blasts are typically ineligible for AML studies, and patients with 21% blasts are ineligible for MDS studies. Here we cite biologic and clinical data to question this practice. Biologically, abnormalities in chromosome 3q26 and mutations in NPM1 and FLT3, regarded as AML associated, also occur in MDS. The genetic signatures of MDS, particularly cases with 10% to 19% blasts (MDS-EB2), resemble those of AML following a preceding MDS (secondary AML). Mutationally, secondary AML appears at least as similar to MDS-EB2 as to de novo AML. Patients presenting with de novo AML but with secondary-type AML mutations seem to have the same poor prognosis associated with clinically defined secondary AML. Seattle data indicate that after accounting for European LeukemiaNet 2017 risk, age, performance status, clinically secondary AML, and treatment including allogeneic transplantation, patients with World Health Organization–defined AML (n = 769) have similar rates of overall survival, event-free survival, and complete remission (CR)/CR with incomplete hematologic recovery as patients with MDS-EB2 (n = 202). We suggest defining patients with 10% to 30% blasts (AML/MDS) as eligible for both AML and MDS studies. This would permit empiric testing of the independent effect of blast percentage on outcome, allow patients access to more therapies, and potentially simplify the regulatory approval process. American Society of Hematology 2022-01-20 /pmc/articles/PMC8832464/ /pubmed/34111285 http://dx.doi.org/10.1182/blood.2021011304 Text en © 2022 by The American Society of Hematology This article is made available via the PMC Open Access Subset for unrestricted reuse and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgment of the original source. These permissions are granted for the duration of the World Health Organization (WHO) declaration of COVID-19 as a global pandemic or until permissions are revoked in writing. Upon expiration of these permissions, PMC is granted a perpetual license to make this article available via PMC and Europe PMC, consistent with existing copyright protections.
spellingShingle Perspective
Estey, Elihu
Hasserjian, Robert P.
Döhner, Hartmut
Distinguishing AML from MDS: a fixed blast percentage may no longer be optimal
title Distinguishing AML from MDS: a fixed blast percentage may no longer be optimal
title_full Distinguishing AML from MDS: a fixed blast percentage may no longer be optimal
title_fullStr Distinguishing AML from MDS: a fixed blast percentage may no longer be optimal
title_full_unstemmed Distinguishing AML from MDS: a fixed blast percentage may no longer be optimal
title_short Distinguishing AML from MDS: a fixed blast percentage may no longer be optimal
title_sort distinguishing aml from mds: a fixed blast percentage may no longer be optimal
topic Perspective
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8832464/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34111285
http://dx.doi.org/10.1182/blood.2021011304
work_keys_str_mv AT esteyelihu distinguishingamlfrommdsafixedblastpercentagemaynolongerbeoptimal
AT hasserjianrobertp distinguishingamlfrommdsafixedblastpercentagemaynolongerbeoptimal
AT dohnerhartmut distinguishingamlfrommdsafixedblastpercentagemaynolongerbeoptimal