Explore the vast range of titles available.

The outcome of acute myeloid leukemia patients aged 70 years or older is poor. Defining the best treatment option remains controversial especially when choosing between intensive chemotherapy and hypomethylating agents. We set up a multicentric European database collecting data of 3 700 newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia patients ≥70 years. The primary objective was to compare overall survival in patients selected for intensive chemotherapy (n = 1199) or hypomethylating agents (n = 1073). With a median follow-up of 49.5 months, the median overall survival was 10.9 (95% CI: 9.7–11.6) and 9.2 months (95% CI: 8.3–10.2) with chemotherapy and hypomethylating agents, respectively. Complete remission or complete remission with incomplete hematologic recovery was 56.1% and 19.7% with chemotherapy and hypomethylating agents, respectively (P < 0.0001). Treatment effect on overall survival was time-dependent. The Royston and Parmar model showed that patients treated with hypomethylating agents had a significantly lower risk of death before 1.5 months of follow-up; no significant difference between 1.5 and 4.0 months, whereas patients treated with intensive chemotherapy had a significantly better overall survival from four months after start of therapy. This study shows that intensive chemotherapy remains a valuable option associated with a better long-term survival in older AML patients.

For two decades, leukaemia stem cells (LSCs) in chronic myeloid leukaemia (CML) and acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) have been advanced paradigms for the cancer stem cell field. In CML, the acquisition of the fusion tyrosine kinase BCR–ABL1 in a haematopoietic stem cell drives its transformation to become a LSC. In AML, LSCs can arise from multiple cell types through the activity of a number of oncogenic drivers and pre-leukaemic events, adding further layers of context and genetic and cellular heterogeneity to AML LSCs not observed in most cases of CML. Furthermore, LSCs from both AML and CML can be refractory to standard-of-care therapies and persist in patients, diversify clonally and serve as reservoirs to drive relapse, recurrence or progression to more aggressive forms. Despite these complexities, LSCs in both diseases share biological features, making them distinct from other CML or AML progenitor cells and from normal haematopoietic stem cells. These features may represent Achilles’ heels against which novel therapies can be developed. Here, we review many of the similarities and differences that exist between LSCs in CML and AML and examine the therapeutic strategies that could be used to eradicate them.This Review discusses many of the similarities and differences between leukaemia stem cells (LSCs) in chronic myeloid leukaemia and acute myeloid leukaemia and examines the therapeutic strategies that could be used to eradicate these LSCs.

The pattern of somatic mutations observed at diagnosis of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) has been well-characterized. However, the premalignant mutational landscape of AML and its impact on risk and time to diagnosis is unknown. Here we identified 212 women from the Women’s Health Initiative who were healthy at study baseline, but eventually developed AML during follow-up (median time: 9.6 years). Deep sequencing was performed on peripheral blood DNA of these cases and compared to age-matched controls that did not develop AML. We discovered that mutations in IDH1 , IDH2 , TP53 , DNMT3A , TET2 and spliceosome genes significantly increased the odds of developing AML. All subjects with TP53 mutations ( n  = 21 out of 21 patients) and IDH1 and IDH2 ( n  = 15 out of 15 patients) mutations eventually developed AML in our study. The presence of detectable mutations years before diagnosis suggests that there is a period of latency that precedes AML during which early detection, monitoring and interventional studies should be considered. Somatic mutations detected years before diagnosis increase the odds of development of acute myeloid leukemia in women.

For several decades, few substantial therapeutic advances have been made for patients with acute myeloid leukaemia. However, since 2017 unprecedented growth has been seen in the number of drugs available for the treatment of acute myeloid leukaemia, with several new drugs receiving regulatory approval. In addition to advancing our therapeutic armamentarium, an increased understanding of the biology and genomic architecture of acute myeloid leukaemia has led to refined risk assessment of this disease, with consensus risk stratification guidelines now incorporating a growing number of recurrent molecular aberrations that aid in the selection of risk-adapted management strategies. Despite this promising recent progress, the outcomes of patients with acute myeloid leukaemia remain unsatisfactory, with more than half of patients ultimately dying from their disease. Enrolment of patients into clinical trials that evaluate novel drugs and rational combination therapies is imperative to continuing this progress and further improving the outcomes of patients with acute myeloid leukaemia.

Mixed phenotype acute leukemia (MPAL) is a rare subtype of acute leukemia characterized by leukemic blasts presenting myeloid and lymphoid markers. Here we report data from integrated genomic analysis on 31 MPAL samples and compare molecular profiling with that from acute myeloid leukemia (AML), B cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL), and T cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (T-ALL). Consistent with the mixed immunophenotype, both AML-type and ALL-type mutations are detected in MPAL. Myeloid-B and myeloid-T MPAL show distinct mutation and methylation signatures that are associated with differences in lineage-commitment gene expressions. Genome-wide methylation comparison among MPAL, AML, B-ALL, and T-ALL sub-classifies MPAL into AML-type and ALL-type MPAL, which is associated with better clinical response when lineage-matched therapy is given. These results elucidate the genetic and epigenetic heterogeneity of MPAL and its genetic distinction from AML, B-ALL, and T-ALL and further provide proof of concept for a molecularly guided precision therapy approach in MPAL. Mixed phenotype acute leukemia (MPAL) is a rare leukemia that presents both myeloid and lymphoid markers on blasts. Here the authors perform genomic analysis to show MPAL involves genetic and epigenetic heterogeneity and is genetically distinct from AML, B-ALL, and T-ALL.

Clinical recommendations for Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML) classification and risk-stratification remain heavily reliant on cytogenetic findings at diagnosis, which are present in <50% of patients. Using comprehensive molecular profiling data from 3,653 patients we characterize and validate 16 molecular classes describing 100% of AML patients. Each class represents diverse biological AML subgroups, and is associated with distinct clinical presentation, likelihood of response to induction chemotherapy, risk of relapse and death over time. Secondary AML-2, emerges as the second largest class (24%), associates with high-risk disease, poor prognosis irrespective of flow Minimal Residual Disease (MRD) negativity, and derives significant benefit from transplantation. Guided by class membership we derive a 3-tier risk-stratification score that re-stratifies 26% of patients as compared to standard of care. This results in a unified framework for disease classification and risk-stratification in AML that relies on information from cytogenetics and 32 genes. Last, we develop an open-access patient-tailored clinical decision support tool. Classification and risk-stratification for Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML) at diagnosis are primarily based on cytogenetics and only a few gene mutations. Here, the authors study the genomic landscape of 3653 AML patients and characterize 16 non-overlapping molecular subgroups of clinical relevance for disease classification and risk prognostication.

Current risk algorithms are primarily based on pre-treatment factors and imperfectly predict outcome in acute myeloid leukemia (AML). We introduce and validate a post-treatment approach of leukemic stem cell (LSC) assessment for prediction of outcome. LSC containing CD34+CD38− fractions were measured using flow cytometry in an add-on study of the HOVON102/SAKK trial. Predefined cut-off levels were prospectively evaluated to assess CD34+CD38−LSC levels at diagnosis (n = 594), and, to identify LSClow/LSChigh (n = 302) and MRDlow/MRDhigh patients (n = 305) in bone marrow in morphological complete remission (CR). In 242 CR patients combined MRD and LSC results were available. At diagnosis the CD34+CD38− LSC frequency independently predicts overall survival (OS). After achieving CR, combining LSC and MRD showed reduced survival in MRDhigh/LSChigh patients (hazard ratio [HR] 3.62 for OS and 5.89 for cumulative incidence of relapse [CIR]) compared to MRDlow/LSChigh, MRDhigh/LSClow, and especially MRDlow/LSClow patients. Moreover, in the NPM1mutant positive sub-group, prognostic value of golden standard NPM1-MRD by qPCR can be improved by addition of flow cytometric approaches. This is the first prospective study demonstrating that LSC strongly improves prognostic impact of MRD detection, identifying a patient subgroup with an almost 100% treatment failure probability, warranting consideration of LSC measurement incorporation in future AML risk schemes.

Glasdegib is a Hedgehog pathway inhibitor. This phase II, randomized, open-label, multicenter study (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01546038) evaluated the efficacy of glasdegib plus low-dose cytarabine (LDAC) in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) or high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome unsuitable for intensive chemotherapy. Glasdegib 100 mg (oral, QD) was administered continuously in 28-day cycles; LDAC 20 mg (subcutaneous, BID) was administered for 10 per 28 days. Patients (stratified by cytogenetic risk) were randomized (2:1) to receive glasdegib/LDAC or LDAC. The primary endpoint was overall survival. Eighty-eight and 44 patients were randomized to glasdegib/LDAC and LDAC, respectively. Median (80% confidence interval [CI]) overall survival was 8.8 (6.9–9.9) months with glasdegib/LDAC and 4.9 (3.5–6.0) months with LDAC (hazard ratio, 0.51; 80% CI, 0.39–0.67, P = 0.0004). Fifteen (17.0%) and 1 (2.3%) patients in the glasdegib/LDAC and LDAC arms, respectively, achieved complete remission (P < 0.05). Nonhematologic grade 3/4 all-causality adverse events included pneumonia (16.7%) and fatigue (14.3%) with glasdegib/LDAC and pneumonia (14.6%) with LDAC. Clinical efficacy was evident across patients with diverse mutational profiles. Glasdegib plus LDAC has a favorable benefit–risk profile and may be a promising option for AML patients unsuitable for intensive chemotherapy.

Progress in the understanding of the biology and therapy of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is occurring rapidly. Since 2017, nine agents have been approved for various indications in AML. These included several targeted therapies like venetoclax, FLT3 inhibitors, IDH inhibitors, and others. The management of AML is complicated, highlighting the need for expertise in order to deliver optimal therapy and achieve optimal outcomes. The multiple subentities in AML require very different therapies. In this review, we summarize the important pathophysiologies driving AML, review current therapies in standard practice, and address present and future research directions.

Elderly patients (aged ≥65 years) with acute myeloid leukaemia have poor outcomes and no effective standard-of-care therapy exists. Treatment with hypomethylating agents such as azacitidine and decitabine is common, but responses are modest and typically short-lived. The oral anti-apoptotic B-cell lymphoma 2 protein inhibitor, venetoclax, has shown promising single-agent activity in patients with relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukaemia and preclinical data suggested synergy between hypomethylating agents and venetoclax, which led to this combination phase 1b study. Previously untreated patients aged 65 years and over with acute myeloid leukaemia who were ineligible for standard induction therapy were enrolled into this non-randomised, open-label, phase 1b study. Patients were required to have an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–2 and either intermediate-risk or poor-risk cytogenetics. Patients were enrolled into one of three groups for the dose-escalation phase of this study: group A (venetoclax and intravenous decitabine 20 mg/m2 [days 1–5 of each 28-day cycle]), group B (venetoclax and subcutaneous or intravenous azacitidine 75 mg/m2 [days 1–7 of each 28-day cycle]), and group C (a venetoclax and decitabine substudy with the oral CYP3A inhibitor posaconazole, 300 mg twice on cycle 1, day 21, and 300 mg once daily from cycle 1, days 22–28, to assess its effect on venetoclax pharmacokinetics). Dose escalation followed a standard 3 + 3 design with at least three evaluable patients enrolled per cohort; daily target doses of venetoclax for groups A and B were 400 mg (cohort 1), 800 mg (cohorts 2 and 3), and 1200 mg (cohort 4), and 400 mg for group C. The primary endpoints were the safety and pharmacokinetics of venetoclax plus decitabine or azacitidine, and to determine the maximum tolerated dose and recommended phase 2 dose. Secondary endpoints included the preliminary anti-leukaemic activity of venetoclax with decitabine or azacitidine through the analysis of overall response, duration of response, and overall survival. We analysed safety, pharmacokinetics, and anti-leukaemic activity in all patients who received one or more venetoclax doses. The expansion phase of the study is ongoing but is closed to accrual. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02203773. 57 patients were enrolled in the study. 23 patients in group A and 22 patients in group B were enrolled between Nov 19, 2014, and Dec 15, 2015, and 12 patients in group C were enrolled between June 14, 2015, and Jan 16, 2016. As of data cutoff on June 15, 2016, the most common grade 3–4 treatment-emergent adverse events were thrombocytopenia (27 [47%] of 57 patients; nine in group A, 13 in group B, and five in group C), febrile neutropenia (24 [42%] of 57; 11 in group A, ten in group B, and three in group C), and neutropenia (23 [40%] of 57; 12 in group A, eight in group B, and three in group C). The most common serious treatment-emergent adverse event in groups A and B was febrile neutropenia (seven [30%] of 23 patients vs seven [32%] of 22), whereas in group C it was lung infection (four [33%] of 12 patients). 49 (86%) of 57 patients had treatment-related adverse events; the most common in groups A and B included nausea (12 [52%] patients vs seven [32%] patients), fatigue (six [26%] patients vs seven [32%]), and decreased neutrophil count (six [26%] patients vs six [27%]), whereas in group C the most common were nausea (seven [58%] of 12 patients), leucopenia (six [50%]), vomiting (five [42%]), and decreased platelet count (five [42%]). The maximum tolerated dose was not reached. The recommended phase 2 dose was 400 mg once a day or 800 mg with an interrupted dosing schedule (safety expansion). In total, four (7%) of 57 patients had died within 30 days of the first venetoclax dose caused by sepsis (group B), bacteraemia (group A), lung infection (group C), and respiratory failure (group A). Tumour lysis syndrome was not observed. Decitabine and azacitidine did not substantially affect venetoclax exposures. Overall, 35 (61%; 95% CI 47·6–74·0) of 57 patients achieved complete remission or complete remission with incomplete marrow recovery. In groups A and B, 27 (60%; 95% CI 44·3–74·3) of 45 patients had complete remission or complete remission with incomplete marrow recovery. Venetoclax plus hypomethylating agent therapy seems to be a novel, well-tolerated regimen with promising activity in this underserved patient population. Evaluation of expansion cohorts is ongoing at 400 mg and 800 mg doses using both hypomethylating agent combinations. AbbVie and Genentech.