4.7 Article

In adults with t(8;21)AML, posttransplant RUNX1/RUNX1T1-based MRD monitoring, rather than c-KIT mutations, allows further risk stratification

Journal

BLOOD
Volume 124, Issue 12, Pages 1880-1886

Publisher

AMER SOC HEMATOLOGY
DOI: 10.1182/blood-2014-03-563403

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Collaborative Innovation Center of Hematology China
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81230013]
  3. Scientific Research Foundation for Capital Medicine Development [2011-4022-08]
  4. Beijing Municipal Science & Technology Commission [Z121107002812033, Z121107002612035, Z111107067311070]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We asked whether minimal residual disease (MRD) determined by RUNX1/RUNX1T1 transcript levels could identify allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT) t(8;21) (q22;q22) acute myeloid leukemia patients who are at high risk for relapse, together with the impact of c-KIT mutations. Ninety-two consecutive adult t(8;21) patients who received allo-HSCT in complete remission were enrolled. MRD status at 1, 2, and 3 months after HSCT identified relapse patients (P = .05, P < .001, P = .0001, respectively). The 2-year cumulative incidence of relapse (CIR) and leukemia-free survival (LFS) was 32% vs 9% (P = .01) and 55% vs 70% (P = .12) for patients with and without c-KIT mutations, respectively. In multivariate analysis, MRD at the first 3 months after HSCT, rather than c-KIT mutations, was an independent factor for CIR (P = .001) and LFS(P = .001). In addition, 17 patients received donor lymphocyte infusion (DLI) as interventional therapy for MRD, and the 2-year CIR and LFS for patients with or without DLI was 24% vs 87% (P = .001) and 64% vs 0%(P < .001), respectively. In conclusion, MRD monitoring early after transplant allows further rapid identification of t(8;21) patients at high risk of relapse and was more predictive of relapse risk than c-KIT mutations.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available