Zehra S, Najam R, Farzana T, Shamsi T. Outcomes of 1st Remission Induction Chemotherapy in Acute Myeloid Leukemia Cytogenetic Risk Groups.
Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2016;
17:5251-5256. [PMID:
28125870 PMCID:
PMC5454667 DOI:
10.22034/apjcp.2016.17.12.5251]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/27/2022] Open
Abstract
Background: Diagnostic karyotyping analysis is routinely used in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) clinics.
Categorization of patients into risk stratified groups (favorable, intermediate and adverse) according to cytogenetic
findings can serve as a valuable independent prognostic factor. Method and Material: A retrospective descriptive
study was conducted based on the patient records of newly diagnosed non-M3 AML young adult cases undergoing
standard 3+7 i.e, Daunorubicin and Ara-C (DA) as remission induction chemotherapy. Diagnostic cytogenetic analysis
reports were analyzed to classify the patients into risk stratified groups according to South West Oncology Group
criteria and prognostic significance was measured with reference to achievement of haematological remission after 1st
induction chemotherapy. Results: A normal karyotype was commonly expressed, found in 47.2% of patients, while 65%
(n=39) appeared to have intermediate risk cytogenetics, and 13.3% (n=8) adverse or unclassified findings. Favourable
cytogenetics was least frequent in the patient cohort, accounting for only 8.3 % (n=5).The impact of cytogenetic risk
groups on achievement of haematological remission was evaluated by applying Pearson Chi-square, and was found
to be non-significant (df=12, p=0.256) but when the outcomes of favourable risk groups with intermediate, adverse
and unclassified findings compared, results were highly significant (df=6, p=0.000) for each comparison. In patients
of the favourable cytogenetic risk group, HR?? was reported in 40% (n=2/5), as compared to 62.2% (n=23/37) in the
intermediate cytogenetic risk group, 57.1% (n=4/7) in the adverse cytogenetic risk group and 28.6% (n=2/7) in hte
unclassified cytogenetic risk group. Conclusion: Cytogenetic risk stratification for AML cases following criteria provided
by international guidelines did not produce conclusive results in our Pakistani patients. However, we cannot preclude
an importance as the literature clearly supports the use of pretreatment karyotyping analysis as a significant predictive
marker for clinical outcomes. The apparent differences between Pakistani and Western studies indicate an urgent need
to develop risk stratification guidelines according to the specific cytogenetic makeup of South Asian populations.
Collapse