Details

Autor(en) / Beteiligte

• RÖLLIG, Christoph
• BORNHÄUSER, Martin
• SCHULER, Ulrich
• STÖLZEL, Friedrich
• VON BONIN, Malte
• WANDT, Hannes
• SCHÄFER-ECKART, Kerstin
• SCHAICH, Markus
• EHNINGER, Gerhard
• THIEDE, Christian
• TAUBE, Franziska
• KRAMER, Michael
• MOHR, Brigitte
• AULITZKY, Walter
• BODENSTEIN, Heinrich
• TISCHLER, Hans-Joachim
• STUHLMANN, Reingard

Titel

Long-Term Prognosis of Acute Myeloid Leukemia According to the New Genetic Risk Classification of the European LeukemiaNet Recommendations: Evaluation of the Proposed Reporting System

Ist Teil von

• Journal of clinical oncology, 2011-07, Vol.29 (20), p.2758-2765

Ort / Verlag

Alexandria, VA: American Society of Clinical Oncology

Erscheinungsjahr

2011

Link zum Volltext

Quelle

Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals

Beschreibungen/Notizen

• The current European LeukemiaNet (ELN) recommendations for acute myeloid leukemia (AML) propose a new risk reporting system, integrating molecular and cytogenetic factors and subdividing the large heterogenous group of intermediate-risk patients into intermediate-I (IR-I) and intermediate-II (IR-II). We assessed the prognostic value of the new risk classification in a large cohort of patients. Complete data for classification were available for 1,557 of 1,862 patients treated in the AML96 trial. Patients were assigned to the proposed genetic groups from the ELN recommendations, and survival analyses were performed using the Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test for significance testing. The median age of all patients was 67 years. With a median follow-up of 8.3 years, significant differences between all risk categories were observed in patients age ≤ 60 years regarding the time to relapse, relapse-free survival, and overall survival (OS). Patients in the IR-II group had a better prognosis than patients in the IR-I group. The median OS times in young patients with favorable risk (FR), IR-I, IR-II, and adverse risk (AR) were 5.3, 1.1, 1.6, and 0.5 years, respectively. Separate analyses in the age group older than 60 years revealed significant differences between FR, AR, and IR as a whole, but not between IR-I and IR-II. In younger patients with AML, the ELN classification seems to be the best available framework for prognostic estimations to date. Caution is advised concerning its use for prospective treatment allocation before it has been prospectively validated. In elderly patients, alternative prognostic factors are desirable for further risk stratification of IR.