Acute Myeloid Leukemia: Longterm Outcome Predicted by Age and Genetic Groups
Authors: Buchner Thomas , Berdel Wolfgang E. , Krug Utz , Haferlach Claudia , Schnittger Susanne , Stelljes Matthias , Silling Gerda , Staib Peter , Grueneisen Andreas , Reichle Albrecht , Balleisen Leopold , Eimermacher Hartmut , Giagounidis Aristoteles , Rasche Herbert , Lengfelder Eva , Sauerland Cristina , Heinecke Achim , Woermann Bernhard Josef , Hiddemann Wolfgang 
Published: October 2019

Abstract 1509

Introduction:

Both, patients' age and genetic groups are important predictors of outcome in AML while their influence remains poorly quantified and compared.

Methods:

In the AMLCG (Acute Myeloid Leukemia Cooperative Group) 1999 trial 1470 patients (pts) were 16–59y and 1747 pts were 60–85y of age. 95% of pts could be classified according to genetic risk groups as standardized on behalf of the ELN (Blood 2010;115:453-74). Their treatment was randomized between TAD-HAM versus HAM-HAM induction (TAD, standard dose thioguanine, cytarabine, daunorubicin 60mg/m2 × 3; HAM, high-dose cytarabine 3g/m2 × 6, mitoxantrone 10mg/m2 × 3), TAD consolidation and monthly maintenance vs TAD and autologous SCT, any chemotherapy + vs – G-CSF priming. All assignment was done upfront. Pts of <60y received routine double induction and full dose HAM while pts of 60+y preferentially received only 1 course induction and HAM at 1g instead of 3g cytarabine/m2 × 6.

Results:

With little difference according to randomizations, pts <60y and 60+y achieved a complete remission (CR) rate of 65% and 51% (p<.001), a 5y overall survival (OS) of 41% and 14% (p<.001), and a 5y ongoing remission duration (RD) of 47% and 21% (p<.001). We particularly focussed on pts around 60y of age and compared the 231 pts of 57–59y with the 315 pts of 60–62y. Corresponding to their similar age the two groups showed similar baseline characteristics. In contrast and due to the cutoff point for age adaption at 60y they differed considerably in treatment. Expressed by the cumulative dosage of cytarabine in induction and early consolidation, the difference between the two groups was by factor 3.9. This difference, however, did not translate into a different outcome being 60% vs 57% CR (p=0.59), 28% vs 25% 5y OS (p=0.40) and 32% vs 29% RD at 5y (p=0.46). Through focussing on patients around 60y a relevant influence of chemotherapy intensity and age adaption could thus be excluded. A multivariable analysis in the complete patients between 16 and 85y of age identified genetic groups and age (as a continuous variable) to be the only risk factors predicting CR, OS as well as RD whereas other risk factors such as secondary AML, WBC, and LDH were predictive only for subsets of endpoints. Among all treatment variables only HAM-HAM induction was associated with a slightly superior RD (p= 0.0715). Grouping by age resulted in 4 age categories (16–46y:n=683, 47–59y: n=787, 60–66y: n=815, and 67+y: n=932) with significantly different OS as well as RD. Subdividing by genetic groups (favorable: n=593, intermediate I: n=1169, intermediate II: n=526, adverse: n=780) distinguished 3 significantly different categories (favorable, intermediate, adverse), a pattern observed in all age groups.

Conclusion:

In a defined representative population of pts with AML the longterm outcome was mainly determined by age and genetic groups but not by treatment intensity or variables, nor by other prognostic factors. Both, age and genetic groups should thus contribute to a reliable prediction of outcome in AML.

Disclosures:

No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.