Different molecular levels of post-induction minimal residual disease may predict hematopoietic stem cell transplantation outcome in adult Philadelphia-negative acute lymphoblastic leukemia

OPEN

Citation: Blood Cancer Journal (2014) 4, e225; doi:10.1038/bcj.2014.48& 2014 Macmillan Publishers Limited All rights reserved 2044-5385/14

http://www.nature.com/bcj

Web End =www.nature.com/bcj

LETTER TO THE EDITOR

Different molecular levels of post-induction minimal residual disease may predict hematopoietic stem cell transplantation outcome in adult Philadelphia-negative acute lymphoblastic leukemia

Blood Cancer Journal (2014) 4, e225; doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/bcj.2014.48

Web End =10.1038/bcj.2014.48 ; published online 11 July 2014

Minimal residual disease (MRD) is a powerful indicator of the risk of relapse in adult acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL),1 used for the risk-oriented application of allogeneic stem cell transplantation (allo-SCT) in patients who remain MRD-positive (MRD ) following induction and consolidation chemotherapy.24

Although allo-SCT is less effective in MRD state,57 correlations

between post-induction quantitative MRD ranges and SCT outcome have not been clearly dened. This would allow an early identication of MRD patients at higher risk of

posttransplantation failure, for whom a closer MRD monitoring and other therapies could be recommended before and after allo-SCT. The quantitative MRD to SCT relationship is examined in the nal update of a prospective Northern Italy Leukemia Group (NILG) trial. In this study, post-induction MRD positivity was the sole decisive factor for the allocation to allo-SCT of adult patients with Philadelphia chromosome-negative (Ph ) ALL.

NILG trial ALL 09/00 was conducted between 2000 and 2006 (Supplementary Figure S1). Details of molecular MRD analysis, risk classication and application of risk/MRD-oriented therapy in the rst 280 patients (192 with Ph ALL) were published.2 For MRD

analysis, one or two patient-specic molecular probe(s) were used, with a sensitivity of at least 10 4, and the bone marrow was examined at weeks 10, 16 and 22, that is, after 3, 5 and 7 treatment blocks, respectively. Patients with MRD X10 4 at time point 2 (TP2, week 16) and/or with any detectable positivity at TP3 (week 22) constituted the MRD group and were eligible for allo-

SCT from human leukocyte antigen-matched related or unrelated donors. To avoid treatment delay, the donor search was initiated at complete remission (CR). No specic conditioning regimen was recommended. MRD patients without donor received high-

dose treatment (hypercycles) with autologous stem cell rescue (auto-SCT), followed by maintenance. MRD-negative (MRD )

patients were to receive standard maintenance therapy. The only exception to this design was t(4;11) ALL, always eligible for allo-

SCT.

The primary objective of the current analysis was to determine whether different post-induction MRD levels were predictive of posttransplantation outcome in MRD patients. To this end the

highest quantitative MRD value from all three study TPs qualied individual patients for inclusion into a given MRD subset. Patients with all negative MRD determinations were assigned to the complete molecular remission (CMR) group. The remaining patients formed the molecularly responsive (MR) subset, with all MRD signals below 10 4, and two molecularly resistant groups with one or more MRD determinations ranging from 10 4 to o10 3 (MR1) and X10 3 (MR2). Survival, disease-free survival (DFS) and relapse incidence (RI) were compared by MRD category in unselected patients and in those allocated to SCT in keeping with study design. KaplanMeier graphs, the log-rank and

two-tailed chi-squared tests were used as appropriate for data reporting and comparative analyses among patient groups.2

The study enrolled 304 patients with Ph ALL (Table 1). Two-

hundred fty-eight entered CR (85%). Sensitive molecular probe(s) were available for 200 CR patients (77.5%). Of these, 141 completed consolidation (70.5%) and 59 did not because of early SCT (n 13), relapse (n 41) and treatment toxicity (n 5). One-

hundred thirty-six of 141 evaluable patients completed the MRD study: 76 were classied MRD (56%) and 60 MRD (44%)

(Supplementary Figure S2). Forty-three of the 60 MRD patients

(71.6%) underwent SCT as per protocol design (26 allo-SCT, 17 hypercycles with auto-SCT) after a median of 2.2 months from the last consolidation cycle (range 0.515.4 months). Allo-SCT was from unrelated and sibling donors in 14 and 12 patients; and the stem cell source was bone marrow in 11, peripheral blood in 13 and cord blood in 2 patients, respectively. Long-term study results are available in Supplementary Figure S3, including outcomes according to clinical risk class. According to the current analysis, there were 64 CMR patients (47%), 21 MR patients (15.5%), 17MR1 patients (12.5%) and 34 MR2 patients (25%). Notably, these were all distinct subjects, summing up to the total of 136 MRD-evaluable cases, with no overlapping across different MRD subgroups. Therefore, all CMR-negative patients were MRD at

all evaluable TPs, and as such were excluded from allo-SCT by design (Table 1). Apart from that, a proportion of the remaining patients could express lower MRD levels at some TP, a nding that was progressively less frequent from MR1 to MR2 patients (o10%

CMR and 20% MR at another TP) and affected mainly different individuals, suggesting consistency of the MRD risk reclassication, as already indicated in this clinical study by the strong statistical correlation between MRD TP1 and TP2/3 results.2 After a minimum observation of 4 years and a maximum close to 13.5 years, estimated 6-year survival and DFS rates ranged from 73% and 64% in CMR patients to 24% and 15% in MR2 patients, respectively, mostly in relation with an increasing RI (Figures 1ac, all Ps o0.0001), except for CMR and MR groups. Although 6-year

DFS was improved following allo-SCT in MRD patients (42%

versus 18% with auto-SCT, P 0.035; Supplementary Figure S4),

posttransplantation outcome was sensibly affected by post-induction MRD level (Figures 1df). Notably, SCT results were superimposable in MR and MR1 groups (not shown), with a cumulative survival and DFS rate of 46% and 50% (n 24)

compared with 16% and 26% in MR2 patients (n 19) (P 0.02

and P 0.03), respectively. RI was 43% compared with 69%

(P 0.16). The best overall results were observed after allo-SCT in

MR/MR1 patients, with cumulative survival and DFS rates of 60% (n 15) compared with 27 and 18% in MR2 subset (n 11)

(P 0.08 and 0.05), and a RI of 23% compared with 64% (P 0.09)

(Figures 1gi).

This very long-term update of a prospective trial included 136 MRD-evaluable patients with Ph ALL, extending our prior

observation on 112 patients with both Ph and Ph disease.2

The dominant prognostic role of MRD was conrmed even after

Letter to the Editor

2

2(n34)

Age,yearsmedian(range)35(15.667.8)33(15.665.9)30(15.663.6)37(16.964.8)30(15.663.6)32.3(1658.2)37.2(20.663.5)38.6(17.364.8)

Gender,M/Fno.(%)173/131(57/43)150/108(58/42)36/40(47/53)37/23(62/38)31/33(48/52)13/8(62/38)12/5(71/29)17/17(50/50)

4 atTP2(week16)and

3 .c SR(standard

SRB-lineage103(34)89(34.5)36(47)25(42)30(47)8(38)7(41)16(47)

HRB-lineage108(35.5)89(34.5)22(29)20(33)19(30)7(33.5)5(29)11(32)

SRT-lineage35(11.5)33(13)9(12)5(8)7(11)2(9.5)3(17.5)2(6)

HRT-lineage58(19)47(18)9(12)10(17)8(12)4(19)2(11.5)5(15)

MRDanalysis,d no.(%)TP1TP2TP3TP1TP2TP3TP1TP2TP3TP1TP2TP3TP1TP2TP3TP1TP2TP3

CMR60697512112586263899374321

MR75131220121112334534

MR 121015111169192

MR 21221723231723

M u/k621354621111234

Abbreviations:CMR,completemolecularremission;EGIL,EuropeanGroupfortheImmunologicalCharacterizationofAcuteLeukemias;HR,highrisk;MR,,molecularremission;MR 1,molecularresistancelevel1;

MR 2,molecularresistancelevel2;MRD,minimalresidualdisease;MRD u/k,MRDunknown;SR,standardrisk;TP,timepoint.

1(n17)MR

3 ; MR 2 , MRDX10

9 /l,cortical/EGILT-IIIimmunophenotype,

non-adversecytogenetics,CRaftercycle1(T-lineage);HR(highrisk)anynon-SRcharacteristic;adversecytogeneticst(4;11)/MLLrearrangement,8, 7,del6q,t(8;14),lowhypodiploidy/neartriploidy

(3039chromosomes/6078chromosomes),complexkaryotype(X3unrelatedclonalabnormalities).

b (n136)

Diagnosis(n304)CR(n258)MRD (n76)MRD(n60)CMR(n64)MR(n21)MR

a (n136)QuantitativeMRDrange

a Accordingtooriginalstudydesign:MRD-negative( )ifo10

4 too10

4 ; MR 1 ,MRD10

b CMR,MRDnegative;MR,MRDo10

Table1.PatientcharacteristicsandMRDstudyresults,byoriginalriskmodelandquantitativeMRDrange

Patients(n304)MRDriskmodel

d TP,time-point.

negativeatTP3(week22);MRD-positive()withanyotherTP2/TP3combination(TP1notconsidered).

9 /l,non-pro-B/EGILBIimmunophenotype,non-adversecytogenetics,CRaftercycle1(B-lineage);leukocytecounto100 10

Riskgroup,c no.(%)

risk)leukocytecounto30 10

Blood Cancer Journal & 2014 Macmillan Publishers Limited

Letter to the Editor

3

Figure 1. Outcomes by quantitative MRD ranges. Shown are long-term survival, DFS and RI rates according to MRD quantitative ranges and SCT therapy (6-year probability is given for each group). (ac) All patients with MRD study (n 136): CMR (n 64) 0.73, 0.63, 0.36; MR (n 21)

0.57, 0.52, 0.33; MR1 (n 17) 0.53, 0.47, 0.50; MR2 (n 34), 0.24, 0.15, 0.76. (df), MRD patients receiving allo/auto-SCT (n 43): MR/MR1

(n 24) 0.50, 0.46, 0.43; MR2 (n 19) 0.26, 0.16, 0.69. (gi) MRD patients receiving allo-SCT (n 26): MR/MR1 (n 15) 0.60, 0.60, 0.23; MR2

(n 11), 0.27, 0.18, 0.64.

prolonged follow-up, and the extent to which MRD patients

were rescued by an allo-SCT correlated with post-induction quantitative MRD ranges, the allograft being performed after a median of 2.2 months from the last consolidation course. The study conclusions are that in terms of RI the outcome of patients with CMR or MR was very similar, allowing a probability of cure around 70% in patients treated with chemotherapy only because MR at TP1 and TP2, and CMR at TP3. Moreover, the patients with MRD 10 3 and greater (MR2) did very badly even after an allo-SCT, although this was intentionally prescribed to overcome the high risk of relapse associated with MRD positivity. Therefore, only those patients who displayed MRD o10 3 and were selected for transplantation because MR1 at TP2 and/or MR/MR1 at TP3 had a realistic chance of cure following allo-SCT, with a DFS of 60% and a RI of about 20%. These ndings may be relevant to the correct positioning of SCT in MRD patients, including those with low-

positive MRD outside the quantitative 10 4 cut-off.3 This information is certainly different from that conveyed by a direct pre-transplantation MRD assay, by which we can directly compare the SCT effects with baseline.57 Rather, it represents a general risk index of transplantation failure, obtainable well ahead of SCT by studying post-induction MRD, and therefore most useful for an effective SCT planning, net of several confounding factors such as the time elapsed from CR to transplantation, the intervening treatments and MRD uctuations due to the transient efcacy of different chemotherapy courses, individual variations of dose

intensity or issues of marrow sampling and MRD processing. In other reports, a post-induction MRD of 10 4 and greater at weeks 6, 16 and 18 was associated with a posttransplantation DFS rate of about 52% at 4 years,8 44% at 5 years3 and 35% at 4 years.4 However, these results were not further dissected by different quantitative MRD ranges.

The warning raised by our analysis is that patients with post-consolidation MRD levels of 10 3 and greater can have a worse posttransplantation outcome despite a justied commitment toward the procedure in view of its greater anti-leukemic power.9 Although the general experience already indicates a higher relapse risk in MRD patients,7 dening more clearly MRD

thresholds associated with higher risk of failure can help design better treatment strategies. For instance, in cases with a MR2 prole, further intensication of chemotherapy is not expected to be effective, given the saturation of the MRD response already observed at week 16 in a large German trial adopting a very intensive schedule.3 Alternative treatments for MR2 patients are nelarabine in T-ALL10 and chimeric antigen receptor-modied T cells (CD19.CAR T)11 or monoclonal antibodies in B-precursor ALL. The latter are the calecheamicin-conjugated anti-CD22 inotuzumab ozogamicin12 and the bispecic anti-CD3/CD19 construct blinatumomab. With blinatumomab, 14 of 16MR2 patients (87.5%) converted to a CMR status, which in some cases lasted for 42 years without SCT.13 A pre-emptive posttransplantation strategy with donor lymphocyte infusions or

& 2014 Macmillan Publishers Limited Blood Cancer Journal

Letter to the Editor

4 cyclosporine A tapering should also be considered.14,15 Adult ALL patients with high post-induction MRD (MR2) may represent a very high-risk subset deserving close MRD monitoring and new experimental treatments aimed at reducing MRD both prior and subsequent to SCT.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The authors declare no conict of interest.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This work was partially supported by a grant from Associazione Italiana Ricerca sul Cancro and Associazione Italiana Lotta alla Leucemia/sezione Paolo Belli, Bergamo, and sezione di Venezia, Italy.

R Bassan1,2, O Spinelli2, E Oldani2, T Intermesoli2, M Tosi2, B Peruta2, E Borlenghi3, EM Pogliani4, E Di Bona5, V Cassibba6,

AM Scattolin1, C Romani7, F Ciceri8, A Cortelezzi9, G Gianfaldoni10, D Mattei11, E Audisio12 and A Rambaldi2

1UOC Ematologia, Ospedale dellAngelo, Mestre-Venezia, Italy;

2USC Ematologia, Ospedale Papa Giovanni XXIII, Bergamo, Italy;

3Divisione di Ematologia, Spedali Civili, Brescia, Italy;

4Clinica Ematologica, Ospedale San Gerardo, Monza, Italy;

5UOC Ematologia, Ospedale S. Bortolo, Vicenza, Italy;

6Divisione di Ematologia, Ospedale Civile, Bolzano, Italy;

7UO Ematologia, Ospedale Oncologico di Riferimento Regionale, Cagliari, Italy;

8UO Ematologia, Istituto Scientico H.S. Raffaele, Milano, Italy;

9UO Ematologia I, IRCCS Ca Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico and Universit degli Studi, Milano, Italy;

10Ematologia, Universit di Firenze, AOU Careggi, Firenze, Italy;

11SC Ematologia, ASO S. Croce e Carle, Cuneo, Italy and

12Ematologia 2, Ospedale San Giovanni Battista/Universit, Torino, Italy

E-mail: mailto:[email protected]

Web End [email protected]

REFERENCES

1 Bruggemann M, Raff T, Kneba M. Has MRD monitoring superseded other prognostic factors in adult ALL? Blood 2012; 120: 44704481.

2 Bassan R, Spinelli O, Oldani E, Intermesoli T, Tosi M, Peruta B et al. Improved risk classication for risk-specic therapy based on the molecular study of minimal residual disease (MRD) in adult acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). Blood 2009; 113: 41534162.

3 Gokbuget N, Kneba M, Raff T, Trautmann H, Bartram CR, Arnold R et al. Adult patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia and molecular failure display a poor prognosis and are candidates for stem cell transplantation and targeted therapies. Blood 2012; 120: 18681876.

4 Ribera JM, Oriol A, Morgades M, Montesinos P, Sarr J, Gonzlez-Campos J et al. Treatment of high-risk Philadelphia chromosome-negative acute lymphoblastic

leukemia in adolescents and adults according to early cytologic response and minimal residual disease after consolidation assessed by ow cytometry: nal results of PETHEMA ALL-HR-03. J Clin Oncol 2014; 32: 15951604.5 Spinelli O, Peruta B, Tosi M, Guerini V, Salvi A, Zanotti MC et al. Clearance of minimal residual disease after allogeneic stem cell transplantation and the prediction of the clinical outcome of adult patients with high-risk acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Haematologica 2007; 92: 612618.6 Leung W, Pui CH, Coustan-Smith E, Yang J, Pei D, Gan K et al. Detectable minimal residual disease before hematopoietic cell transplantation is prognostic but does not preclude cure for children with very-high-risk leukemia. Blood 2012; 120: 468472.7 Buckley SA, Appelbaum FR, Walter RB. Prognostic and therapeutic implications of minimal residual disease at the time of transplantation in acute leukemia.Bone Marrow Transplant 2013; 48: 630641.8 Dhdin N, Huynh A, Maury S, Tabrizi R, Thomas X, Chevallier P et al. Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) in adults with Philadelphia chromosome (Ph)-negative acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL): results from the group for research on adult ALL (GRAALL). Blood 2013; 122: 552.9 Goldstone AH, Richards SM, Lazarus HM, Tallman MS, Buck G, Fielding AK et al. In adults with standard-risk acute lymphoblastic leukemia, the greatest benet is achieved from a matched sibling allogeneic transplantation in rst complete remission, and an autologous transplantation is less effective than conventional consolidation/maintenance chemotherapy in all patients: nal results of the International ALL Trial (MRC UKALL XII/ECOG E2993). Blood 2008; 111: 18271833.10 Gokbuget N, Basara N, Baurmann H, Beck J, Bruggemann M, Diedrich H et al. High single-drug activity of nelarabine in relapsed T-lymphoblastic leukemia/lymphoma offers curative option with subsequent stem cell transplantation. Blood 2011; 118: 35043511.11 Brentjens RJ, Davila ML, Riviere I, Park J, Wang X, Cowell LG et al. CD19-targeted T cells rapidly induce molecular remissions in adults with chemotherapy-refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Sci Transl Med 2013; 5: 177ra138.12 Kantarjian H, Thomas D, Jorgensen J, Kebriaei P, Jabbour E, Rytting M et al. Results of inotuzumab ozogamicin, a CD22 monoclonal antibody, in refractory and relapsed acute lymphocytic leukemia. Cancer 2013; 119: 27282736.13 Topp MS, Gokbuget N, Zugmaier G, Degenhard E, Goebeler ME, Klinger M et al.Long-term follow-up of hematologic relapse-free survival in a phase 2 study of blinatumomab in patients with MRD in B-lineage ALL. Blood 2012; 120: 51855187.14 Dominietto A, Pozzi S, Miglino M, Albarracin F, Piaggio G, Bertolotti F et al.Donor lymphocyte infusions for the treatment of minimal residual disease in acute leukemia. Blood 2007; 109: 50635064.15 Lankester AC, Bierings MB, van Wering ER, Wijkhuijs AJ, de Weger RA, Wijnen JT et al.Preemptive alloimmune intervention in high-risk pediatric acute lymphoblastic leukemia patients guided by minimal residual disease level before stem cell transplantation. Leukemia 2010; 24: 14621469.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International License. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the articles Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in the credit line; if the material is not included under the Creative Commons license, users will need to obtain permission from the license holder to reproduce the material. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

Web End =http:// http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

Web End =creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

Supplementary Information accompanies this paper on Blood Cancer Journal website (http://www.nature.com/bcj

Web End =http://www.nature.com/bcj)

Blood Cancer Journal & 2014 Macmillan Publishers Limited