should the therapy of aml be driven by mrd quantification? · aml02: a prospective, multicenter...
TRANSCRIPT
Should the therapy of AML be driven by MRD quantification?
Sergio AmadoriDept. HematologyTor Vergata University HospitalRome
COHEM 09/2010
YES
Should the therapy of AML be driven by MRD quantification?
•It makes sense
•Independent predictor of outcome
•Platform for guiding therapy
AML
Biologically heterogenous group of disorders Disease recurrence major obstacle to cure Risk-stratification schemes (based on pre-therapy variables)
inadequate for predicting relapse in individual patients Can we do better in terms of predicting risk and guiding treatment
decisions?
SWOG(Medeiros et al, Blood 2010)
#1: It makes sense
Presence of occult disease (MRD) at morphologic CR is predictive of relapse
Quantification of MRD defines the risk
1012
1010
108
106
104
102
100
Time
No.
of l
euke
mic
cel
ls
Relapse
Cure
CR
MRD
MRD quantification: How? Morphology has no value More sensitive techniques needed
FCM RQ/PCR
Detection of LAIP•Applicable in >90% of pts•Fast, relatively inexpensive•Quantitative•Standard lab needed•Less leukemia specific•Sensitivity 10-3 – 10-5
Detection of LSGT•Applicable in ~60% of pts•Laborious, expensive•(semi-) quantitative•Special lab needed •Leukemia specific •Sensitivity 10-4 – 10-6
FCM: optimal method to test MRD in AML
Minimum 4-colour technology Aberrant LAIP identified at diagnosis in >90% of AMLs Average sensitivity 0.01% (10-4)
Multiple staining at diagnosis
Identification of LAIP(average 3 LAIPs per patient)
Definition of patient-specific “immunologic fingerprint”
Immunologic fingerprint used during follow-up
#2: Independent predictor of outcome
Many studies published in the last decade Main conclusions
MRD monitoring feasibleMost relevant checkpoints
- End of induction- After first consolidation
Independent prognostic factor for- Risk of relapse- Relapse-free survival- Overall survival
Maurillo et al, JCO 2008
Tor Vergata University Hospital (TVUH) 142 adults with AML in CR (median age 52y, range 18-75; 50 ≥ 60y) EORTC-GIMEMA AML-10, AML-12, AML-13 MRD+: ≥ 3.5 x 10-4 (0.035%)
Maurillo et al, JCO 2008
Excel: Ind – Cons –Good: Ind + Cons –
Poor: Ind + Cons +Ugly: Ind – Cons +
Buccisano et al, Blood 2010
Cytogenetic and molecular diagnostic characterization combined to postconsolidation minimal residual disease assessment by flow-cytometry improves risk stratification in adult
acute myeloid leukemia
TVUH 143 adults with AML in CR (median age 50y, range 18-75; 40 ≥ 60y) EORTC-GIMEMA AML-10, AML-12, AML-13, AML-17 MRD+: ≥ 3.5 x 10-4 (0.035%)
Buccisano et al, Blood 2010
Integrated Risk-ScoreLow-Risk High-Risk
Good K / MRD-Int K / MRD-
Adverse KFLT3+Good K / MRD+Int K / MRD+
#3: Platform for guiding therapy
MRD quantification
Predicts outcome
Refines risk-stratification
MRD-directed therapy“The time has come”
APL: a paradigm for MRD-directed therapy
GIMEMA(Lo Coco et al, Semin Hematol 2002)
PETHEMA(Esteve et al, Leukemia 2007)
Grimwade et al, JCO 2009
Prospective Minimal Residual Disease Monitoring to Predict Relapse of Acute Promyelocytic Leukemia and
to Direct Pre-Emptive Arsenic Trioxide Therapy
Non-APL AML: the next challenge
Improve risk-stratification and guide post-remission therapy Inform timing and type of transplantation in CR1 Detect impending relapse and guide preemptive therapy Improve outcome
MRD monitoring
MRD+ MRD-
Treatment intensificationNovel therapies Treatment reduction
Clinical application of MRD to guide therapy in AML
Limited data available
Retrospective Prospective
TVUH Pediatric AML
alloSCT > autoSCT for MRD+ AML
N=42MRD+ post-cons
N=37MRD- post-cons
Maurillo et al, JCO 2008
B
alloSCT > autoSCT for High-risk AML
auSCT alloSCT Total
L-risk 26 6 32
H-risk 30 17 47
Total 56 23 79
Low-Risk High-RiskGood K / MRD-Int K / MRD-
Adverse KFLT3+Good K / MRD+Int K / MRD+
Buccisano et al, Blood 2010
alloSCT > autoSCT for High-risk AML
0 1 2 3 4 5
Time (yrs)
0,0
0,1
0,2
0,3
0,4
0,5
0,6
0,7
0,8
0,9
1,0
Dise
ase
Free
Sur
vival
P=0.003
AlloSCT (ITT)N=21
AlloSCTN=15
AutoSCTN=53
85%
44%
20%
Buccisano et al, 2010 unpublished
AML02: A prospective, multicenter study of risk/MRD-directed therapy
MRD monitored by FCM in 95% of pts MRD+: ≥ 0.1% cells with LAIP among BM mononuclear cells Used to intensify timing or components of subsequent therapy
Day 22 MRD ≥ 0.1% → intensified timing (ADE)Day 22 MRD ≥ 1% → ADE + GOPersistent MRD ≥ 0.1% → eligible for HSCT
SR(with donor)
HR
Enrollment,Randomization,
Initial Risk Assignment
H-ADEADE
±GO
FinalRisk
Assignment
SCT
CI CII CIII
ADE
MRD MRD
LRSR(w/o donor)
SR(with donor)
HR
(Rubnitz et al, Lancet Oncology 2010)
AML02: Main conclusions
Risk- and MRD-adapted therapy resulted in 71% OS Day 22 MRD >1% significantly associated with worse
OS, EFS, CIR
71% ± 4%OS
63% ± 4% EFS
00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.9
1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
19% ± 3%
Years on Study
9% ± 2%
Relapse
Death
N=230CR rate 94%MDR+ 37% (Ind1) MDR+ 20% (Ind2)
St. Jude AML Trials
GIMEMA AML1310: a study of risk-adapted and MRD-directed therapy for adult AML
Low-risk: CBF/Kitwt; NPM1+/FLT3-Int-risk: all othersHigh-risk: Adverse K; FLT3+
Diagnosis
Low-risk
Int-risk
High-risk
MRD-
MRD+
MRD marker
LAIP
Risk stratif
CG, molecular
MRD assess
LAIP
FLA-I salvageNo CR CR
CR
Indu
ctio
n(1
or 2
cou
rses
)
Con
solid
atio
n 1
autoSCT
alloSCT
alloSCT: MRD, MUD, UCB, HRD
GIMEMA AML1310: Aims
Improve outcome byRefining risk stratificationUsing MRD to guide type of transplant in Int-risk AML
Primary endpointOverall survival
Secondary endpointsCIRDFSEFS
Issues to address
20-30% relapse rate in MRD negative Why are we unable to predict it? Technical reasons
Increase sensitivity/specificityDefine more significant thresholdsDefine more relevant checkpoints
Biological reasonsQuantification of LSC (CLL-1)
Conclusions
Independent predictor of outcome Can be used as an early endpoint to assess efficacy Refines pre-therapy risk-stratification, providing a
framework for development of more tailored treatment approaches
Routinely used to guide management of patients with APL
MRD-directed treatment strategies likely to improve the management of other subtypes of AML
Acknowledgments
Dept. Hematology Tor Vergata Univ. HospitalAdriano VendittiFrancesco Buccisano Luca MaurilloMaria I. Del PrincipeFrancesco Lo CocoWilliam Arcese
GIMEMA GroupMarco VignettiPaola FaziGiulio D’Alfonso
AcknowledgmentsEmperor Caesar Augustus
(63 B.C. – 14 A.D.)
“Sic Est”