F. Sora1,2, P. Chiusolo1,2, L. Laurenti1,2, I. Innocenti1, F. Autore1, A. Corbingi1, S. Giammarco1, E. Metafuni1, A. Bacigalupo1,2 and S. Sica1,2..
1 Istituto di Ematologia, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A Gemelli IRCCS, Roma Italy.
2 Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Roma, Italy.
Corresponding
author: Simona Sica, MD. Istituto di Ematologia, Policlinico “A.
Gemelli”, Università Cattolica S.Cuore, Largo Gemelli, 8, 00168 Roma.
Tel. +39-06-30154278 fax +39- 06-3017319. E-mail:
simona.sica@unicatt.it
Published: May 1, 2020
Received: April 6, 2020
Accepted: April 16, 2020
Mediterr J Hematol Infect Dis 2020, 12(1): e2020030 DOI
10.4084/MJHID.2020.030
This is an Open Access article distributed
under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0),
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any
medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
|
To the Editor,
During
the past decades, autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) has been
largely used as a consolidation therapy in patients with acute myeloid
leukemia (AML) in complete remission (CR) excluding high risk
categories historically by cytogenetic. Wang and coll. in a
meta-analysis demonstrated an advantage in terms of leukemia-free
survival and disease recurrence compared to conventional chemotherapy.[1]
When compared to allogeneic stem cell transplantation, disease
recurrence is higher in autologous recipients population and is
considered as a choice in patients without suitable allogeneic donors
or for elderly patients.[2] Actually, this type of
transplant is characterized usually by mild toxicity and low
transplant-related mortality with a low rate of infectious complication
and absence of graft versus host disease (GVHD).
We here describe
our results obtained in a retrospective monocentric experience with
this approach focusing on extensive follow up after ASCT. In this
study, the characteristic and the outcome of consecutive patients
receiving ASCT in our department from 1992 to 2014 for AML was
analysed. Patients affected by acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL) were
excluded from this analysis.
Sixty-seven patients were included in
the study after approval from the Internal Review Board: 38 (57%) were
males and 29 (43%) females, and the median age was 15 years (range
15-68). Cytogenetic analysis on bone marrow at diagnosis allowed to
classify the population in 51/67 patients (76%) as follows: good risk
group, bearing t(8;21)(q22;q22), inv(16)(p13q22)/t(16;16)(p13;q22);
poor-risk group, bearing complex karyotype,
inv(3)(q21q26)/t(3;3)(q21;q26)−5,-5q,−7,-7q, other abn(11q23),
inv(3)(q21q26.2), t(3;3)(q21q26.2), t(6;9), t(9;22), abn(17p);
intermediate-risk group, with cytogenetics abnormalities not
encompassed in good or poor-risk group. Considering that this
retrospective analysis encompasses 22 years, nucleophosmin (NPM1) was
available in only 25 patients, and among them, 6 patients were NPM1+,
and FLT3 mutational status was assessed only in 1 patient. Six (9%) out
of 67 patients were in the good-risk group, 33 (49%) were in the
intermediate group, 12 (18%) were in the high risk group, 7 (11%) were
not evaluable for the absence of metaphases in the sample analysed and
in 9 (13%) patients cytogenetic was not evaluated. Disease status at
transplant was respectively: 1st complete remission (CR) in 57 patients (85%) and 2nd or 3rd
CR in 4 patients (6%), partial remission (PR) in 4 (6%) and progressive
disease (PD) in 2 (3%) patients. The median interval from diagnosis to
ASCT was 6 months (range 3-37). The most common conditioning regimen
was busulfan and cyclophosphamide administered in 52 patients (78%),
but the combination of busulfan and melphalan was also used in 13
patients (19%) and BEAM in 2 patients (3%). The stem cell source was
peripheral blood stem cells in all patients with a median dose of 4.1
x106/kg CD34+ (range 2.35-25.6).
Statistical
analysis was performed using the NCCS11 package. Survival curves were
estimated by the Kaplan-Meyer method, and the log-rank test was used
for univariate comparison. The Gray test was used for univariate
comparisons.
Two patients (4%) out of 67 patients died from
transplant-related mortality mainly from infectious complications. Two
patients transplanted with PD further progressed after autologous
transplantation, the first had a central nervous progression and died 4
months after ASCT, the second one received allogeneic transplantation
from a sibling donor, but relapsed and died 36 months after ASCT. Three
patients receiving autologous transplantation in partial remission
relapsed after a median of 3 months (range 1-5) and died at a median of
10 months (range 3-11) after ASCT. Only one patient receiving ASCT in
PR relapsed and subsequently received allogeneic SCT and died from
post-transplant EBV related malignancy.
Relapse was observed in 31 out of 57 patients transplanted in 1st
CR (54%) at a median of 10 (range 1-152) months. Nine patients did not
receive further treatment and died at a median of 2 months from relapse
(range 1-3). A second attempt to induce 2nd CR was performed in 22 patients: 16 patients achieved 2nd CR either after low dose cytosine arabinoside based regimen or salvage chemotherapy. Seven patients achieving 2nd
CR not proceeding to allogenic transplantation had a median survival of
42 months (range 17-68), and cause of death was AML in all patients.
Eleven patients in 2nd
CR went on to receive allogeneic stem cell transplantation as a salvage
treatment, and 8 of them died from TRM at a median of 2.5 months (range
1-5) except for 2 patients who further progressed and died from the
disease at 3 and 5 months respectively after allogeneic
transplantation. One patient with a late relapse is currently alive and
well at 29 months after allogeneic transplantation.
Twenty-seven
patients remained in CR after ASCT at a median follow up of 173 (range
51-321) months. During extensive follow-up, 6 deaths not related to AML
were recorded at a median of 85.5 months, and the cause of death was
due to infection in 2 patients and secondary neoplasia in 2 patients
and unknown in 2 patients, respectively. Interestingly, following a
close follow up of long term survivors, we detected 5 out of 27
patients (18%) with a second neoplasm including 2 myelodysplastic
syndromes unrelated to primary AML, one diffuse large B cell lymphoma
of the rectum, 1 neuroendocrine carcinoma and 1 colon carcinoma at a
median of 111 months (range 89-185 months) after ASCT (Table 1).
Of them, three patients died from second neoplasia at 91, 98 and 119
months, respectively, 2 patients are alive at 157 and 205 months from
ASCT.
|
Table
1. Second neoplasms. |
Overall
Survival rate (OS) for all patients was 50% after a median follow-up of
51 months (1-321). OS rates were 66%, 63%, 48%, and 40% at 1, 2, 5, and
10 years respectively, and are reported in figure 1,
as compared with our series of patients not transplanted. A landmark
analysis for patients alive at 5 years after ASCT was performed, and
the OS rate ten years was 68%.
|
Figure
1. Overall survival in patients receiving or not receiving autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. |
Cumulative incidence of relapse is depicted in figure 2 and was significantly different (p=0.009) in patients transplanted in 1st
CR compared to patients in more advanced phase as the only variable
since age, conditioning regimen, cytogenetic risk were not
statistically significant in univariate analysis. Leukemia free
Survival (LFS) rate for all patients was 59% at one year.
|
Figure 2. Effect of CR1 on CI of relapse. |
LFS
rates were 51%, 46%, 39% at 2, 5 and 10 years respectively. The overall
LFS rate in the population alive after five years from transplant was
73%.
Our findings demonstrate that nearly half of patients with
AML are alive after five years post ASCT and that survivors after five
years have an excellent OS and LFS. These data are similar to that been
reported by Yanada et al.[3] in 2019. Salvage
allogeneic transplantation remains feasible in those who relapse, but
there is a very high TRM in our series, mainly due to the year of
transplant carried out mainly more than ten years ago being reduced in
the recent era.[4,5] ASCT, therefore, remains a reasonable option for patients with selected AML according to cytogenetic and molecular risk.[6]
During extensive follow-up, which is rarely reported in the literature,
new malignancies developed even in a subset of patients adhering to
strict preventive measures and interestingly in 3 patients a new
hematological malignancy occurred. Prospective risk-adapted approaches
that assign patients to ASCT based on disease-risk and minimal residual
disease (MRD) status are ongoing[7,8] and may clarify the specific subpopulations of AML patients who could take advantage of this currently neglected procedure.
References
- Wang J, Ouyang J, Zhou R, Chen B, Yang Y.
Autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for acute myeloid
leukemia in first complete remission: a meta-analysis of randomized
trials. Acta Haematol. 2010; 2:61-71. https://doi.org/10.1159/000314273 PMid:20616541
- Ossenkoppele
GJ, Janssen JJ, Huijgens PC. Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation in
elderly Acute Myeloid Leukemia. Mediterr J Hematol Infect Dis.
2013;5(1):e2013018. https://doi.org/10.4084/mjhid.2013.018 PMid:23505606 PMCid:PMC3591258
- Yanada
M, Takami A, Mizuno S, Mori J, Chou T, Usuki K, et al. Autologous
hematopoietic cell transplantation for acute myeloid leukemia in
adults: 25 years of experience in Japan. Int J Hematol. 2020;1:93-102. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12185-019-02759-y PMid:31612307
- Loke
J, Malladi R, Moss P, Craddock C. The role of allogeneic stem cell
transplantation in the management of acute myeloid leukaemia: a triumph
of hope and experience.Br J Haematol. 2020; 1:129-146. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjh.16355 PMid:31823351 PMCid:PMC6972492
- Dandoy
CE, Kim S, Chen M, Ahn KW, Ardura MI, Brown V et al. Incidence, Risk
Factors, and Outcomes of Patients Who Develop Mucosal Barrier
Injury-Laboratory Confirmed Bloodstream Infections in the First 100
Days After Allogeneic Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplant. JAMA Netw
Open. 2020 ;1:e1918668 https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.18668 PMid:31913492 PMCid:PMC6991246
- Saraceni
F, Bruno B, Lemoli RM, Meloni G, Arcese W, Falda M, et al. Autologous
stem cell transplantation is still a valid option in good- and
intermediate-risk AML: a GITMO survey on 809 patients autografted in
first complete remission. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2017;1:163-166. https://doi.org/10.1038/bmt.2016.233 PMid:27668760
- Venditti
A, Piciocchi A, Candoni A, Melillo L, Calafiore V, Cairoli R et
al.GIMEMA AML1310 trial of risk-adapted,MRD-directed therapy for young
adults with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia. Blood.
2019;12:935-945. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood.2018886960 PMid:31395600
- Morsink
LM, Othus M, Bezerra ED, Wood BL, Fang M, Sandmaier BM et al. Impact of
pretransplant measurable residual disease on the outcome of allogeneic
hematopoietic cell transplantation in adult monosomal karyotype AML.
Leukemia.. doi:10.1038/s41375-020-0717-0. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41375-020-0717-0 PMid:31974434
[TOP]