[Skip to Navigation]
Sign In
Figure 1.  Patient Selection for the Pre-MEASURE Study
Patient Selection for the Pre-MEASURE Study

ITD indicates internal tandem duplication; TKD, tyrosine kinase domain.

Figure 2.  Impact of NPM1 and FLT3 Internal Tandem Duplication Next-Generation Sequencing–Measurable Residual Disease Status on Clinical Outcomes
Impact of NPM1 and FLT3 Internal Tandem Duplication Next-Generation Sequencing–Measurable Residual Disease Status on Clinical Outcomes

Patients with NPM1 mutated and/or FLT3 internal tandem duplication (NPM1/FLT3-ITD) acute myeloid leukemia (n = 822) with measurable residual disease (MRD) defined by persistent variants detectable by next-generation sequencing (NGS) in remission blood prior to transplant (NPM1/FLT3-ITD MRD positive) had significantly higher rates of relapse and decreased overall survival after transplant than patients with no variants detected (NPM1/FLT3-ITD MRD negative).

A, The median time of observation was 61 months (IQR, 48-64 months) for patients who tested positive for MRD and 60 months (IQR, 48-72 months) for patients who tested negative for MRD in the discovery cohort.

B, The median time of observation was 24 months (IQR, 24-26 months) for patients who tested positive for MRD and 25 months (IQR, 24-28 months) for patients who tested negative for MRD in the validation cohort.

C and D, Results of flow cytometry performed in remission prior to transplant do not stratify for overall survival in this cohort (panel C) and do not add additional prognostic value to the results of DNA sequencing (panel D). The median time of observation was 26 months (IQR, 24-47 months) for patients who tested positive for MRD by flow cytometry and 35 months (IQR, 24-57 months) for patients who tested negative. The median time of observation was 36 months (IQR, 24-59 months) for patients who tested negative by NGS-MRD and flow cytometry, 26 months (IQR, 24-46 months) for patients who tested positive by NGS-MRD and flow cytometry, 37 months (IQR, 24-61 months) for those who tested positive by NGS-MRD and flow cytometry, and 25 months (IQR, 24-45 months) for patients who tested negative.

Figure 3.  Detection and Impact of Residual Variants on Clinical Outcomes by Gene
Detection and Impact of Residual Variants on Clinical Outcomes by Gene

A, Heatmap illustrating for each patient (n = 1075) their cohort assignment, conditioning intensity, reported baseline variant status, and residual variant detection status by next-generation sequencing measurable residual disease (NGS-MRD) for each gene. Patients are sorted by the variants reported to the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research as being present at initial (baseline) diagnosis (positive or negative/not tested).

B, Patients with NPM1 mutated acute myeloid leukemia (AML) (n = 531) with residual NPM1 variants detectable by NGS prior to transplant (NPM1 MRD positive) had significantly higher rates of relapse and decreased overall survival than patients with no NPM1 variants detected (NPM1 MRD negative). The median time of observation was 29 months (IQR, 24-48 months) for patients who tested positive and 34 months (IQR, 24-50 months) for those who tested negative.

C, Patients with FLT3 internal tandem duplication (FLT3-ITD) AML (n = 608) with residual FLT3-ITD variants detectable by NGS prior to transplant (FLT3-ITD MRD positive) had significantly higher rates of relapse and decreased overall survival than patients with no FLT3-ITD detected (FLT3-ITD MRD negative). The median time of observation was 28 months (IQR, 24-61 months) in patients who tested positive and 35 months (IQR, 24-52 months) for those who tested negative.

MAC indicates myeloablative conditioning, NMA, nonmyeloablative conditioning; RIC, reduced-intensity conditioning; TKD, tyrosine kinase domain.

Figure 4.  Impact of Conditioning Intensity and Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS) Measurable Residual Disease Status on Clinical Outcomes
Impact of Conditioning Intensity and Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS) Measurable Residual Disease Status on Clinical Outcomes

A, Among patients with NPM1 mutated and/or FLT3 internal tandem duplication (FLT3-ITD) acute myeloid leukemia (AML; n = 822), differences in relapse rates and overall survival were identified between subgroups defined by conditioning intensity and NGS-based measurable residual disease (MRD) status.

B, In patients with NPM1 mutated and/or FLT3-ITD AML younger than 60 years (n = 483), MAC regimens resulted in significantly decreased rates of relapse (P = .04) in the MRD-positive group.

C and D, In patients with NPM1 mutated and/or FLT3-ITD AML receiving RIC (n = 281), melphalan conditioning was associated with significantly decreased relapse rates and increased overall survival in the MRD-positive group but not in the MRD-negative group. Median times of observation are listed in eTable 3.

Table.  Patient Clinical Characteristics
Patient Clinical Characteristics
Supplement 1.

eMethods

eReferences

eFigure 1. STARD diagram

eFigure 2. Association of baseline patient characteristics and pre-transplant flow cytometry on clinical outcomes

eFigure 3. Detection of residual variants in the blood of AML patients during complete remission

eFigure 4. Association of pre-transplant residual variants on clinical outcomes

eFigure 5. Univariate cox regression for relapse

eFigure 6. Association of NGS-MRD status for NPM1 and/or FLT3-ITD on clinical outcomes

eFigure 7. Association of site flow cytometry and NGS-MRD status on clinical outcomes for patients with baseline FLT3-ITD and/or NPM1 variants

eFigure 8. Association of age, race, and NGS-MRD status for NPM1 and/or FLT3-ITD on clinical outcomes

eFigure 9. Association of persistent variants by gene on clinical outcomes

eFigure 10. Association of conditioning intensity, age, and NGS-MRD status for NPM1 and/or FLT3-ITD on clinical outcomes

eFigure 11. Association of NPM1 and/or FLT3-ITD status and NGS-MRD VAF on clinical outcomes

eFigure 12. Association of post-transplant maintenance therapy and NGS-MRD status on clinical outcomes

eTable 1. Patient clinical characteristics (NPM1 and/or FLT3-ITD baseline)

eTable 2. Comparison of reduced intensity regimens

eTable 3. Interquartile range of observation times for patients analyzed in Figure 4

eTable 4. Regions of interest in targeted DNA-sequencing panel

eTable 5. Sample sequencing summary (n = 1,075)

eTable 6. Variants detected by next-generation sequencing in the blood of AML patients prior to conditioning

1.
Döhner  H, Weisdorf  DJ, Bloomfield  CD.  Acute myeloid leukemia.   N Engl J Med. 2015;373(12):1136-1152. doi:10.1056/NEJMra1406184 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
2.
Ley  TJ, Miller  C, Ding  L,  et al; Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network.  Genomic and epigenomic landscapes of adult de novo acute myeloid leukemia.   N Engl J Med. 2013;368(22):2059-2074. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1301689 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
3.
Papaemmanuil  E, Gerstung  M, Bullinger  L,  et al.  Genomic classification and prognosis in acute myeloid leukemia.   N Engl J Med. 2016;374(23):2209-2221. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1516192 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
4.
Tyner  JW, Tognon  CE, Bottomly  D,  et al.  Functional genomic landscape of acute myeloid leukaemia.   Nature. 2018;562(7728):526-531. doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0623-z PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
5.
Bottomly  D, Long  N, Schultz  AR,  et al.  Integrative analysis of drug response and clinical outcome in acute myeloid leukemia.   Cancer Cell. 2022;40(8):850-864.e9. doi:10.1016/j.ccell.2022.07.002 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
6.
Patel  JP, Gönen  M, Figueroa  ME,  et al.  Prognostic relevance of integrated genetic profiling in acute myeloid leukemia.   N Engl J Med. 2012;366(12):1079-1089. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1112304 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
7.
Duncavage  EJ, Schroeder  MC, O’Laughlin  M,  et al.  Genome sequencing as an alternative to cytogenetic analysis in myeloid cancers.   N Engl J Med. 2021;384(10):924-935. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2024534 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
8.
Grimwade  D, Walker  H, Oliver  F,  et al. The Medical Research Council Adult and Children’s Leukaemia Working Parties.  The importance of diagnostic cytogenetics on outcome in AML: analysis of 1612 patients entered into the MRC AML 10 trial.   Blood. 1998;92(7):2322-2333. doi:10.1182/blood.V92.7.2322 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
9.
Stone  RM, Mandrekar  SJ, Sanford  BL,  et al.  Midostaurin plus chemotherapy for acute myeloid leukemia with a FLT3 mutation.   N Engl J Med. 2017;377(5):454-464. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1614359 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
10.
DiNardo  CD, Stein  EM, de Botton  S,  et al.  Durable remissions with ivosidenib in IDH1-mutated relapsed or refractory AML.   N Engl J Med. 2018;378(25):2386-2398. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1716984 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
11.
Perl  AE, Martinelli  G, Cortes  JE,  et al.  Gilteritinib or chemotherapy for relapsed or refractory FLT3-mutated AML.   N Engl J Med. 2019;381(18):1728-1740. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1902688 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
12.
Montesinos  P, Recher  C, Vives  S,  et al.  Ivosidenib and azacitidine in IDH1-mutated acute myeloid leukemia.   N Engl J Med. 2022;386(16):1519-1531. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2117344 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
13.
Tazi  Y, Arango-Ossa  JE, Zhou  Y,  et al.  Unified classification and risk-stratification in acute myeloid leukemia.   Nat Commun. 2022;13(1):4622. doi:10.1038/s41467-022-32103-8 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
14.
Döhner  H, Wei  AH, Appelbaum  FR,  et al.  Diagnosis and management of AML in adults: 2022 recommendations from an international expert panel on behalf of the ELN.   Blood. 2022;140(12):1345-1377. doi:10.1182/blood.2022016867 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
15.
Koreth  J, Schlenk  R, Kopecky  KJ,  et al.  Allogeneic stem cell transplantation for acute myeloid leukemia in first complete remission: systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective clinical trials.   JAMA. 2009;301(22):2349-2361. doi:10.1001/jama.2009.813 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
16.
Cornelissen  JJ, Versluis  J, Passweg  JR,  et al; HOVON; SAKK Leukemia Groups.  Comparative therapeutic value of post-remission approaches in patients with acute myeloid leukemia aged 40-60 years.   Leukemia. 2015;29(5):1041-1050. doi:10.1038/leu.2014.332 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
17.
Pollyea  DA, Bixby  D, Perl  A,  et al.  NCCN guidelines insights: acute myeloid leukemia, version 2.2021.   J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2021;19(1):16-27. doi:10.6004/jnccn.2021.0002 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
18.
Heuser  M, Freeman  SD, Ossenkoppele  GJ,  et al.  2021 update on MRD in acute myeloid leukemia: a consensus document from the European LeukemiaNet MRD Working Party.   Blood. 2021;138(26):2753-2767. doi:10.1182/blood.2021013626 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
19.
Buckley  SA, Wood  BL, Othus  M,  et al.  Minimal residual disease prior to allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation in acute myeloid leukemia: a meta-analysis.   Haematologica. 2017;102(5):865-873. doi:10.3324/haematol.2016.159343 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
20.
Araki  D, Wood  BL, Othus  M,  et al.  Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation for acute myeloid leukemia: time to move toward a minimal residual disease-based definition of complete remission?   J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(4):329-336. doi:10.1200/JCO.2015.63.3826 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
21.
Hourigan  CS, Gale  RP, Gormley  NJ, Ossenkoppele  GJ, Walter  RB.  Measurable residual disease testing in acute myeloid leukaemia.   Leukemia. 2017;31(7):1482-1490. doi:10.1038/leu.2017.113 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
22.
Jongen-Lavrencic  M, Grob  T, Hanekamp  D,  et al.  Molecular minimal residual disease in acute myeloid leukemia.   N Engl J Med. 2018;378(13):1189-1199. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1716863 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
23.
Short  NJ, Zhou  S, Fu  C,  et al.  Association of measurable residual disease with survival outcomes in patients with acute myeloid leukemia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.   JAMA Oncol. 2020;6(12):1890-1899. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.4600 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
24.
Hourigan  CS, Dillon  LW, Gui  G,  et al.  Impact of conditioning intensity of allogeneic transplantation for acute myeloid leukemia with genomic evidence of residual disease.   J Clin Oncol. 2020;38(12):1273-1283. doi:10.1200/JCO.19.03011 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
25.
Short  NJ, Fu  C, Berry  DA,  et al.  Association of hematologic response and assay sensitivity on the prognostic impact of measurable residual disease in acute myeloid leukemia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.   Leukemia. 2022;36(12):2817-2826. doi:10.1038/s41375-022-01692-0 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
26.
Paiva  B, Vidriales  MB, Sempere  A,  et al; PETHEMA (Programa para el Estudio de la Terapéutica en Hemopatías Malignas) cooperative study group.  Impact of measurable residual disease by decentralized flow cytometry: a PETHEMA real-world study in 1076 patients with acute myeloid leukemia.   Leukemia. 2021;35(8):2358-2370. doi:10.1038/s41375-021-01126-3 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
27.
Tettero  JM, Freeman  S, Buecklein  V,  et al.  Technical aspects of flow cytometry-based measurable residual disease quantification in acute myeloid leukemia: experience of the European LeukemiaNet MRD Working Party.   Hemasphere. 2021;6(1):e676. doi:10.1097/HS9.0000000000000676 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
28.
Schuurhuis  GJ, Heuser  M, Freeman  S,  et al.  Minimal/measurable residual disease in AML: a consensus document from the European LeukemiaNet MRD Working Party.   Blood. 2018;131(12):1275-1291. doi:10.1182/blood-2017-09-801498 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
29.
Klco  JM, Miller  CA, Griffith  M,  et al.  Association between mutation clearance after induction therapy and outcomes in acute myeloid leukemia.   JAMA. 2015;314(8):811-822. doi:10.1001/jama.2015.9643 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
30.
Levis  MJ, Perl  AE, Altman  JK,  et al.  A next-generation sequencing-based assay for minimal residual disease assessment in AML patients with FLT3-ITD mutations.   Blood Adv. 2018;2(8):825-831. doi:10.1182/bloodadvances.2018015925 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
31.
Thol  F, Gabdoulline  R, Liebich  A,  et al.  Measurable residual disease monitoring by NGS before allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation in AML.   Blood. 2018;132(16):1703-1713. doi:10.1182/blood-2018-02-829911 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
32.
Dillon  R, Hills  R, Freeman  S,  et al.  Molecular MRD status and outcome after transplantation in NPM1-mutated AML.   Blood. 2020;135(9):680-688. doi:10.1182/blood.2019002959 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
33.
Liang  EC, Chen  C, Lu  R, Mannis  GN, Muffly  L.  Measurable residual disease status and FLT3 inhibitor therapy in patients with FLT3-ITD mutated AML following allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation.   Bone Marrow Transplant. 2021;56(12):3091-3093. doi:10.1038/s41409-021-01475-8 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
34.
Loo  S, Dillon  R, Ivey  A,  et al.  Pretransplant FLT3-ITD MRD assessed by high-sensitivity PCR-NGS determines posttransplant clinical outcome.   Blood. 2022;140(22):2407-2411. doi:10.1182/blood.2022016567 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
35.
Murdock  HM, Kim  HT, Denlinger  N,  et al.  Impact of diagnostic genetics on remission MRD and transplantation outcomes in older patients with AML.   Blood. 2022;139(24):3546-3557. doi:10.1182/blood.2021014520 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
36.
Döhner  H, Estey  E, Grimwade  D,  et al.  Diagnosis and management of AML in adults: 2017 ELN recommendations from an international expert panel.   Blood. 2017;129(4):424-447. doi:10.1182/blood-2016-08-733196 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
37.
Jimenez Jimenez  AM, De Lima  M, Komanduri  KV,  et al.  An adapted European LeukemiaNet genetic risk stratification for acute myeloid leukemia patients undergoing allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant; a CIBMTR analysis.   Bone Marrow Transplant. 2021;56(12):3068-3077. doi:10.1038/s41409-021-01450-3 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
38.
Hong  S, Majhail  NS.  Increasing access to allotransplants in the United States: the impact of race, geography, and socioeconomics.   Hematology Am Soc Hematol Educ Program. 2021;2021(1):275-280. doi:10.1182/hematology.2021000259 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
39.
Gyurkocza  B, Sandmaier  BM.  Conditioning regimens for hematopoietic cell transplantation: one size does not fit all.   Blood. 2014;124(3):344-353. doi:10.1182/blood-2014-02-514778 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
40.
Craddock  C, Jackson  A, Loke  J,  et al.  Augmented reduced-intensity regimen does not improve postallogeneic transplant outcomes in acute myeloid leukemia.   J Clin Oncol. 2020;39(7):768-778. doi:10.1200/JCO.20.02308 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
41.
Gilleece  MH, Labopin  M, Yakoub-Agha  I,  et al.  Measurable residual disease, conditioning regimen intensity, and age predict outcome of allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation for acute myeloid leukemia in first remission: a registry analysis of 2292 patients by the Acute Leukemia Working Party European Society of Blood and Marrow Transplantation.   Am J Hematol. 2018;93(9):1142-1152. doi:10.1002/ajh.25211 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
42.
Levis  M.  Midostaurin approved for FLT3-mutated AML.   Blood. 2017;129(26):3403-3406. doi:10.1182/blood-2017-05-782292 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
43.
Zhou  Z, Nath  R, Cerny  J,  et al.  Reduced intensity conditioning for acute myeloid leukemia using melphalan- vs busulfan-based regimens: a CIBMTR report.   Blood Adv. 2020;4(13):3180-3190. doi:10.1182/bloodadvances.2019001266 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
44.
Baron  F, Labopin  M, Peniket  A,  et al.  Reduced-intensity conditioning with fludarabine and busulfan versus fludarabine and melphalan for patients with acute myeloid leukemia: a report from the Acute Leukemia Working Party of the European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation.   Cancer. 2015;121(7):1048-1055. doi:10.1002/cncr.29163 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
45.
Ivey  A, Hills  RK, Simpson  MA,  et al; UK National Cancer Research Institute AML Working Group.  Assessment of minimal residual disease in standard-risk AML.   N Engl J Med. 2016;374(5):422-433. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1507471 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
46.
Acute myeloid leukemia: developing drugs and biological products for treatment. Food and Drug Administration. August 2020. Accessed January 20, 2022. https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/acute-myeloid-leukemia-developing-drugs-and-biological-products-treatment
47.
Abraham  IE, Rauscher  GH, Patel  AA,  et al.  Structural racism is a mediator of disparities in acute myeloid leukemia outcomes.   Blood. 2022;139(14):2212-2226. doi:10.1182/blood.2021012830 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
48.
Burchert  A, Bug  G, Fritz  LV,  et al.  Sorafenib maintenance after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for acute myeloid leukemia with FLT3-internal tandem duplication mutation (SORMAIN).   J Clin Oncol. 2020;38(26):2993-3002. doi:10.1200/JCO.19.03345 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
49.
Platzbecker  U, Middeke  JM, Sockel  K,  et al.  Measurable residual disease-guided treatment with azacitidine to prevent haematological relapse in patients with myelodysplastic syndrome and acute myeloid leukaemia (RELAZA2): an open-label, multicentre, phase 2 trial.   Lancet Oncol. 2018;19(12):1668-1679. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30580-1 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
50.
Sorror  ML, Maris  MB, Storb  R,  et al.  Hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT)–specific comorbidity index: a new tool for risk assessment before allogeneic HCT.   Blood. 2005;106(8):2912-2919. doi:10.1182/blood-2005-05-2004 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Original Investigation
March 7, 2023

DNA Sequencing to Detect Residual Disease in Adults With Acute Myeloid Leukemia Prior to Hematopoietic Cell Transplant

Author Affiliations
  • 1Laboratory of Myeloid Malignancies, Hematology Branch, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland
  • 2Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland
  • 3Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research, Minneapolis, Minnesota
  • 4Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee
  • 5University of Virginia, Charlottesville
  • 6National Marrow Donor Program, Minneapolis, Minnesota
  • 7The Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus
  • 8Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, Miami, Florida
  • 9Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
  • 10University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
  • 11University of Minnesota, Minneapolis
  • 12Myeloid Malignancies Program, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland
JAMA. 2023;329(9):745-755. doi:10.1001/jama.2023.1363
Key Points

Question  Can DNA sequencing of blood from adults with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in first remission prior to allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant identify patients at increased risk of subsequent relapse and death?

Findings  In patients with AML in first complete remission who received a transplant from March 1, 2013, through December 31, 2017 (discovery, n = 371) or from January 1, 2018, through February 14, 2019 (validation, n = 451), the presence of residual FLT3 internal tandem duplication (FLT3-ITD) and/or NPM1 DNA variants before transplant were associated with significantly increased rates of relapse (validation cohort difference, 47%; 95% CI, 26% to 69%) and significantly worse survival (validation cohort difference, −24%; 95% CI, −39 to −9%) at 3 years, compared with those without these markers.

Meaning  Among patients with AML in first remission prior to allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant, the persistence of FLT3-ITD or NPM1 variants in the blood at an allele fraction of 0.01% or higher was associated with increased relapse and worse survival compared with those without variants detected.

Abstract

Importance  Preventing relapse for adults with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in first remission is the most common indication for allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant. The presence of AML measurable residual disease (MRD) has been associated with higher relapse rates, but testing is not standardized.

Objective  To determine whether DNA sequencing to identify residual variants in the blood of adults with AML in first remission before allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant identifies patients at increased risk of relapse and poorer overall survival compared with those without these DNA variants.

Design, Setting, and Participants  In this retrospective observational study, DNA sequencing was performed on pretransplant blood from patients aged 18 years or older who had undergone their first allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant during first remission for AML associated with variants in FLT3, NPM1, IDH1, IDH2, or KIT at 1 of 111 treatment sites from 2013 through 2019. Clinical data were collected, through May 2022, by the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research.

Exposure  Centralized DNA sequencing of banked pretransplant remission blood samples.

Main Outcomes and Measures  The primary outcomes were overall survival and relapse. Day of transplant was considered day 0. Hazard ratios were reported using Cox proportional hazards regression models.

Results  Of 1075 patients tested, 822 had FLT3 internal tandem duplication (FLT3-ITD) and/or NPM1 mutated AML (median age, 57.1 years, 54% female). Among 371 patients in the discovery cohort, the persistence of NPM1 and/or FLT3-ITD variants in the blood of 64 patients (17.3%) in remission before undergoing transplant was associated with worse outcomes after transplant (2013-2017). Similarly, of the 451 patients in the validation cohort who had undergone transplant in 2018-2019, 78 patients (17.3%) with residual NPM1 and/or FLT3-ITD variants had higher rates of relapse at 3 years (68% vs 21%; difference, 47% [95% CI, 26% to 69%]; HR, 4.32 [95% CI, 2.98 to 6.26]; P < .001) and decreased survival at 3 years (39% vs 63%; difference, −24% [2-sided 95% CI, −39% to −9%]; HR, 2.43 [95% CI, 1.71 to 3.45]; P < .001).

Conclusions and Relevance  Among patients with acute myeloid leukemia in first remission prior to allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant, the persistence of FLT3 internal tandem duplication or NPM1 variants in the blood at an allele fraction of 0.01% or higher was associated with increased relapse and worse survival compared with those without these variants. Further study is needed to determine whether routine DNA-sequencing testing for residual variants can improve outcomes for patients with acute myeloid leukemia.

Introduction

Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is a rare group of blood cancers associated with a high mortality rate.1 The genetic etiology of AML has been well characterized,2-5 and genomic analysis performed at the time of AML diagnosis can help predict response to therapy,6-8 determine patients eligible for specific molecularly targeted therapies,9-12 and identify patients at highest risk of subsequent relapse and death among those who achieve an initial complete remission to therapy.3,13,14

Maintenance of initial remission for patients with AML is the most common indication for allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant and is generally recommended as consolidative therapy during first remission for all except those unable, unwilling, or those with the lowest expected rates of relapse after chemotherapy.14-17 Despite this, disease recurrence after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant occurs in approximately 30% of patients and is the most common cause of posttransplant death.

Growing evidence suggests that results of measurable residual disease (MRD) testing provides important information regarding risk for subsequent relapse and mortality in patients in cytomorphological complete remission, including prior to allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant.18-25 However, there is currently no standard method for AML MRD testing.18 Flow cytometry is commonly used for AML MRD testing, particularly when no appropriate molecular method is available,18 but concerns have been raised about lack of interlaboratory standardization, leading to potentially limited prognostic value in decentralized settings.26-28 The evidence for novel approaches such as genetic sequencing to identify patients in clinical remission at higher risk of relapse or mortality29-35 has been insufficient for widespread clinical adoption.

In this Pre-MEASURE observational study, targeted deep DNA sequencing was performed to test the hypothesis that detection of specific residual AML-associated variants in the blood of patients in first remission prior to allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant would be associated with higher rates of relapse and mortality after transplant. Secondary outcomes were relapse-free survival and nonrelapse mortality.

Methods
Clinical Cohort

The Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR)—a research collaboration between the National Marrow Donor Program, the Medical College of Wisconsin, and more than 330 transplant centers—collects detailed patient-, disease-, and treatment-related data for every patient undergoing allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant in the US. Participating centers were required to report all treatments consecutively. Compliance was monitored by clinical research coordinators, and patients were followed up longitudinally. Computerized checks and physicians’ review of submitted data and on-site audits of participating centers were used to monitor data quality. Protected health information for research was collected and maintained in CIBMTR’s capacity as a public health authority under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) privacy rule. Eligible patients for this study were aged 18 years or older; had undergone their first allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant during first complete remission for AML associated with variants in NPM1 (OMIM 164040), FLT3 (OMIM 136351), IDH1 (OMIM 147700), IDH2 (OMIM 147650), and/or KIT (OMIM 164920); had a remission blood sample collected within 100 days prior to transplant; and had undergone transplant at least 3 years before the study analysis with relapse and survival data available. Race and ethnicity data were collected by CIBMTR as pretransplant essential data and were based on patient self-report extracted from the medical record by transplant center data managers in categories based on the US Office of Management and Budget’s Revisions to the Standards for the Classification of Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity. CIBMTR requires reporting sites to report if flow cytometry testing was performed during remission at the time of transplant, and if any evidence of residual AML was detected. All patients provided written informed consent for participation in the National Marrow Donor Program institutional review board–approved CIBMTR database (NCT01166009) and repository (NCT04920474) research protocols. Research was performed in compliance with all applicable federal regulations pertaining to the protection of human research participants and with the approval of the CIBMTR observational research group. In this study, patients were not randomly assigned to conditioning intensities, and treating physicians were aware of pretransplant patient and disease factors.

Next-Generation Sequencing for Residual Variant Detection

Targeted error–corrected DNA sequencing was performed on 500 ng of genomic DNA using a custom panel covering hotspot regions within the 5 genes of interest. Libraries were generated using an automated liquid handling workflow with pre–polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and post-PCR separation and subjected to sequencing using unique dual indexes on a NovaSeq 6000 (Illumina). A variant allele fraction of 0.01% or higher was used to classify positive from negative MRD results. Further details on library preparation and variant detection are available in Supplement 1.

Statistical Analysis

Clinical data of the patients included age, sex, race and ethnicity, hematopoietic cell transplant–specific comorbidity index, Karnofsky performance status, de novo or secondary (history of antecedent hematological disorder or prior chemotherapy or radiotherapy) AML type, European LeukemiaNet 2017 risk group,36,37 baseline genetics before transplant (IDH1, IDH2, KIT, NPM1, FLT3-tyrosine kinase domain [FLT3-TKD], and FLT3 internal tandem duplication [FLT3-ITD]), conditioning regimen, graft type, donor group, antithymocyte globulin usage, and site reported MRD status. The day of the transplant was considered day 0. The primary outcomes were overall survival and cumulative incidence of relapse with nonrelapse mortality as a competing risk. Relapse-free survival and nonrelapse mortality were secondary outcomes. Kaplan-Meier estimation and log-rank tests were used to calculate overall survival and relapse-free survival end points. Fine-Gray models were used to examine cumulative incidence of relapse with nonrelapse mortality as a competing risk. Gene combinations for next-generation sequencing (NGS) MRD were determined by the discovery cohort and validated in the validation cohort. Cox proportional hazards regression models with forward selection or Lasso penalty were used to estimate the relative risks of clinical events, and the proportional hazards assumptions were evaluated using Schoenfeld residuals. Flow cytometry, AML variant subtype, and transplant intensity subgroup analyses were performed in the combined discovery and validation cohorts of patients with NPM1 mutated and/or FLT3-ITD AML. Interaction testing was performed using a likelihood ratio test. All tests were 2-sided, and the statistical significance threshold was set as P < .05. The prespecified statistical analysis plan was registered with Open Science Framework. R version 4.2.0 was used for analysis and figure generation. Further details are provided in Supplement 1.

Results

Between January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2019, a total of 3020 patients aged 18 years or older in first complete remission from AML associated with FLT3, NPM1, IDH1, IDH2, and/or KIT variants received a first allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant at a CIBMTR reporting site and had consented for research. After exclusions (based on sample and data availability, length of follow-up time since transplant, and unsuccessful DNA extraction from blood), 1075 patients were available for analysis (from 110 sites in the US and 1 in Europe), including 454 who had undergone transplant between March 1, 2013, and December 31, 2017 (discovery cohort), and 621 in the validation cohort who had undergone transplant between January 1, 2018, and February 14, 2019 (Figure 1, Table, and eFigure 1 in Supplement 1). The 2 cohorts were similar for most patient, leukemic, and transplant factors. However, among patients in the validation cohort, variants in the IDH genes at AML diagnosis were more commonly reported and cord blood transplants were less commonly received. Eighty-four percent of patients in these cohorts were White.38

No differences in 3-year relapse rates (29% vs 28%) or overall survival rates (61% vs 61%) were observed between the discovery and validation cohorts. Patients with secondary AML, European LeukemiaNet adverse or intermediate risk, or who had received reduced-intensity conditioning had higher relapse rates. Age, sex, race and ethnicity, patient comorbidity (hematopoietic cell transplant–specific comorbidity) or performance (Karnofsky performance status) scores, graft source, donor type, and antithymocyte globulin usage were not associated with relapse rates (eFigure 2 in Supplement 1).

Blood was collected a median of 9 days prior to transplant. In the discovery cohort, 131 of 454 patients (28.9%) had a variant in the FLT3, NPM1, IDH1, IDH2, or KIT genes detected in pretransplant remission blood by NGS-MRD. The total number of variants in the discovery cohort was 177. The most common variants detected were in FLT3-ITD, IDH2, and NPM1. In the validation cohort, 188 of 621 patients (30.3%) had a variant in FLT3, NPM1, IDH1, IDH2, or KIT detected by NGS-MRD. The total number of variants detected in this validation cohort was 254. The most common variants detected were in IDH2, FLT3-ITD, and NPM1. Detected variants were validated using digital droplet PCR (eFigure 3 in Supplement 1).

In the discovery cohort, detection of variants in pre–allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant remission blood was associated with increased relapse, lower relapse-free survival, and decreased overall survival and was not associated with nonrelapse mortality (eFigure 4 in Supplement 1). Univariate Cox regression analysis identified detection of FLT3-ITD or NPM1 variants as associated with increased relapse in this cohort and was selected as the NGS-MRD definition (eFigure 5 in Supplement 1). The 822 patients in the discovery and validation cohorts reported to have NPM1 and/or FLT3-ITD variants present at their initial AML diagnosis served as the focus for analysis on the association of detecting persistence of these variants in remission (eTable 1 in Supplement 1).

Primary Outcomes

In the discovery cohort of 371 patients with NPM1 mutated and/or FLT3-ITD AML, 64 patients (17.3%) with persistent NPM1 and/or FLT3-ITD variants detected in pretransplant remission blood had significantly higher posttransplant relapse (at 3 years, 59% vs 24%; difference, 35% [2-sided 95% CI, 22% to 48%]; HR, 3.71 [95% CI, 2.55 to 5.41]; P < .001) and lower overall survival (at 3 years, 34% vs 66% difference, −32% [2-sided 95% CI, −45% to −19%]; HR, 2.60 [95% CI, 1.85 to 3.65]; P < .001) than those without persistent variants (Figure 2A).

In the validation cohort of 451 patients with NPM1 mutated and/or FLT3-ITD AML, detection of persistent NPM1 and/or FLT3-ITD variants among 78 (17.3%) was associated with a significantly higher posttransplant relapse rate (at 3 years, 68% vs 21%; difference, 47% [2-sided 95% CI, 26% to 69%]; HR, 4.32 [95% CI, 2.98 to 6.26]; P < .001) and lower overall survival (at 3 years, 39% vs 63%; difference, −24% [2-sided 95% CI, −39% to −9%]; HR, 2.43 [95% CI, 1.71 to 3.45]; P < .001) than those without persistent variants (Figure 2B). The proportional hazards assumption was not violated.

Secondary Outcomes

Detection of persistent FLT3-ITD and/or NPM1 variants was associated with lower rates of relapse-free survival at 3 years compared with testing negative in both the discovery (27% vs 59%) and validation (19% vs 59%) cohorts (eFigure 6 in Supplement 1). Patients who tested positive for residual FLT3-ITD and/or NPM1 variants in the discovery and validation cohorts had nonrelapse mortality rates similar to those testing negative (eFigure 6 in Supplement 1).

Flow cytometry is currently commonly performed as a test for measurable residual disease in patients with AML in remission prior to transplant. Ninety-four percent (774 of 822) of patients in the combined discovery and validation cohorts were reported to have undergone such testing. The 59 patients (7.6%) testing positive for residual disease by flow cytometry prior to transplant had overall survival rates that did not statistically differ from those testing negative (P = .07), represented only 16.7% (22 of 132) of those testing positive by DNA-sequencing for persistent variants, and added no additional prognostic information regarding overall survival to that provided by DNA-sequencing (Figure 2C and D).

NGS-MRD in Molecular Subgroups

Four hundred eighty (45%) of screened patients in this study were reported as having variants in multiple genes of interest at the time of initial AML diagnosis (median, 1; range, 1-4; Figure 3).

The 3-year relapse rate for all 531 patients with NPM1-mutated AML was 28%. Residual NPM1 variants in pretransplant remission blood samples were detectable in 81 (15.3%) of these patients and associated with statistically significantly higher rates of relapse compared with those without residual NPM1 variants detected (at 3 years, 63% vs 22%; HR, 4.45 [95% CI, 3.17-6.25]; P < .001), as well as with significantly lower rates of relapse-free survival (at 3 years, 23% vs 61%; HR, 3.16 [95% CI, 2.36- 4.23]; P < .001) and overall survival (at 3 years, 35% vs 66%; HR, 2.87 [95% CI, 2.10-3.92]; P < .001).

The 3-year relapse rate for all 608 patients with FLT3-ITD AML was 32%. Residual FLT3-ITD was detectable in pretransplant remission blood samples from 85 (14%) of these patients and associated with significantly higher rates of relapse vs those without residual FLT3-ITD detected (at 3 years, 67% vs 26%; HR, 4.09 [95% CI, 3.00-5.58]; P < .001), as well as with significantly lower rates of relapse-free survival (at 3 years, 20% vs 56%; HR, 2.91 [95% CI, 2.21-3.83]; P < .001) and overall survival (at 3 years, 31% vs 63%; HR, 2.59 [95% CI, 1.93-3.48]; P < .001).

Results of DNA sequencing for residual FLT3-ITD and NPM1 variants in remission blood, but not site-reported flow cytometry testing, was associated with statistically significant stratification for posttransplant overall survival in all molecular subgroups (eFigure 7 in Supplement 1). DNA sequencing for residual FLT3-ITD and NPM1 variants in remission blood was also associated with statistically significant stratification in both younger and older adults (eFigure 8 in Supplement 1). No racial differences were detected in clinical outcomes (eFigure 2 in Supplement 1), NGS-MRD rates, or prognosis (eFigure 8 in Supplement 1).

For those patients with AML containing variants in both NPM1 and FLT3-ITD, detection in pretransplant remission blood of NPM1 variants alone, FLT3-ITD alone, or both was associated with increased posttransplant relapse (eFigure 9 in Supplement 1).

Results According to Transplant Intensity

An important component of the allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant procedure is the preparative chemotherapy and/or radiation therapy conditioning regimen given, immediately before infusion of donor hematopoietic cells, with the dual intent of facilitating donor cell engraftment and reducing residual tumor burden.39 There is strong evidence that patients who test positive for MRD prior to allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant with reduced-intensity conditioning have high relapse and poor survival40 and that in younger adult patients, conditioning intensification may improve these outcomes.24,41 NGS-MRD positivity was associated with higher rates of relapse and worse survival (Figure 4A) partially mitigated (likelihood ratio test P = .02) in younger patients (<60 years) who received high-intensity myeloablative conditioning (3-year relapse rate, 53% vs 78%; HR, 1.97 [95% CI, 1.03-3.75]; P = .04; Figure 4B and eFigure 10 in Supplement 1).

Based on the premise that patients who underwent reduced-intensity transplants would be more similar to each other than to those receiving myeloablative conditioning in this nonrandomized study, exploratory analyses were performed comparing outcomes in patients receiving melphalan-containing reduced-intensity regimens with other forms of reduced-intensity conditioning (excluding nonmyeloablative regimens, eTable 2 in Supplement 1). There was no statistically significant difference in relapse or survival in those who were NGS-MRD negative, but significantly lower relapse and improved survival in patients positive for NGS-MRD receiving melphalan-based reduced-intensity conditioning (Figure 4C and D).

In multivariable analyses, NGS-MRD status was associated with both relapse and overall survival although receipt of reduced-intensity conditioning that did not contain melphalan was also associated with a higher rate of relapse (eFigure 11 in Supplement 1). In subgroups defined by baseline FLT3-ITD and NPM1 variant status, NGS-MRD remained significant regardless of variant allele fraction threshold selected. FLT3-ITD or NPM1 variants detected in remission using the current European LeukemiaNet recommended threshold of 0.1% variant allele fraction was associated with increased rates of relapse and decreased survival, lowering this threshold 10-fold to 0.01% variant allele fraction did not substantially change these findings but doubled the number of patients identified as NGS-MRD positive (eFigure 11 in Supplement 1). No difference in rates of NGS-MRD positivity were observed between the initial discovery cohort and the later validation cohort that followed the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of the FLT3 inhibitor midostaurin for AML in 2017.42 No difference in clinical outcomes was observed for those receiving posttransplant maintenance therapy, regardless of NGS-MRD status (eFigure 12 in Supplement 1).

Discussion

Results reported herein demonstrated that the detection by DNA-sequencing of persistent FLT3-ITD or NPM1 variants in the blood of adult patients with AML in remission before transplant was associated with statistically significant increased rates of relapse and decreased survival than those testing negative. FLT3-ITD and NPM1 are the most common variants in AML.3,4 Although prognostic models based on baseline characteristics can be developed to stratify entire cohorts of patients based on relapse or survival probabilities, these results show that NGS-MRD testing of the blood of patients with FLT3-ITD and/or NPM1 mutated AML in first remission prior to transplant could identify differential risk between individuals otherwise placed in the same baseline risk classification.

A personalized medicine approach to the care of patients with AML would require not only comprehensive clinical and genetic profiling at initial diagnosis for an optimal initial therapeutic approach but also iterative reassessment and therapy adjustment during and after planned treatment. The ability to detect residual leukemia in patients in an apparent complete remission after treatment using AML MRD would be an important clinical tool, if the measured result were interpretable in the context of large clinical data sets supporting both the prognostic implications and the potential clinical utility of any proposed therapeutic intervention.

Consistent with prior reports,24,41 myeloablative conditioning was associated with less relapse and improved survival, compared with reduced-intensity conditioning in younger patients with NGS-MRD prior to transplant (Figure 4B). However, many patients with AML are not able to tolerate myeloablative conditioning, limiting applicability. Attempts to augment reduced-intensity conditioning to reduce the risk of relapse, particularly among those testing MRD positive, have been unsuccessful.40 Large registry-level retrospective analyses reported that melphalan-containing reduced-intensity allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant regimens for AML were associated with lower relapse rates than busulfan-based regimens.43,44 Results reported herein did not find evidence of a difference in relapse for patients testing NGS-MRD negative prior to reduced-intensity transplants when comparing those who received a transplant with or without melphalan. In contrast, there was a statistically significant difference in relapse and survival for those with persistently detectable FLT3-ITD or NPM1 variants based on the type of reduced-intensity conditioning regimen received. This preliminary observation should be confirmed in a prospective randomized trial but may have implications for allogeneic transplant conditioning selection.

The European Leukemia Network guidelines have recognized, since 2017, that the absence of MRD represents a superior treatment response for AML than complete remission defined by cytomorphology alone.36 DNA sequencing can detect multiple potential variants within multiple AML MRD targets; a prior study using quantitative PCR required 27 different assays for NPM1 variants alone.45 The FDA defines achievement of MRD levels of less than 0.01% as important evidence of drug efficacy in patients with acute leukemia.46 Findings from this study are consistent with this standard for adult patients with FLT3-ITD and/or NPM1 mutated AML in first complete remission prior to allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant. Results showed that approximately 1 in 6 of such patients were in a high-risk subgroup with MRD detectable higher than this threshold, with serious posttransplant outcomes not adequately addressed by the current clinical standard of care. Adults with persistence of FLT3-ITD and/or NPM1 variants in cytomorphological remission after initial treatment for AML therefore represent patients with unmet medical need, who should be offered enrollment in a therapeutic clinical trial wherever possible.

Limitations

This study has several limitations. First, it is unknown how results of NGS-MRD testing on bone marrow would differ from blood. Second, this study did not have access to technical details of the pretransplant flow cytometry MRD testing reported to the CIBMTR and could not determine whether centralized flow cytometry MRD testing would be concordant with or complementary to NGS-MRD. Third, 4 potential NGS-MRD targets (FLT3-TKD, IDH1, IDH2, KIT) were not selected for validation based on results of the discovery cohort. Fourth, in this registry study of patients with AML undergoing allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant, it is unknown how these results apply to others who did not undergo transplant due to results of MRD testing performed by the local site, donor unavailability, structural racism,47 or other factors. Fifth, only approximately 10% of patients were reported as having received posttransplant maintenance therapy. Although there is evidence that this approach may reduce relapse including in those MRD positive after transplant,48,49 no benefit of posttransplant maintenance therapy was observed for any subset in our study. Sixth, it is unknown whether the type of therapy that induced remission may have interacted with findings reported herein. Seventh, 84% of the participants were White. The generalizability of these results to a more diverse cohort is unknown. Eighth, it is unknown whether serial testing after transplant would further improve the performance characteristics of NGS-MRD testing.

Conclusions

Among patients with acute myeloid leukemia in first remission prior to allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant, the persistence of FLT3 internal tandem duplication or NPM1 variants in the blood at an allele fraction of 0.01% or above was associated with increased relapse and worse survival compared with those without these variants. Further study is needed to determine whether routine DNA-sequencing testing for residual variants can improve outcomes for patients with acute myeloid leukemia.

Back to top
Article Information

Corresponding Author: Christopher S. Hourigan, DM, DPhil, Laboratory of Myeloid Malignancies, Hematology Branch, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health, 10 Center Dr, Room 10CRC 6-5142, Bethesda, MD 20814-1476 (hourigan@nih.gov).

Accepted for Publication: January 28, 2023.

Author Contributions: Drs Dillon and Hourigan and Ms Gui had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. Dr Dillon and Ms Gui contributed equally to this work.

Concept and design: Dillon, Gui, Hourigan.

Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: All authors.

Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: All authors.

Statistical analysis: Dillon, Gui, Page, Zeger.

Obtained funding: Hourigan.

Administrative, technical, or material support: Dillon, Wong, Andrew, El Chaer, Spellman, Howard, Devine, Jimenez Jimenez, Kebriaei.

Supervision: Zeger, Hourigan.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Zeger reported receiving grants from National Institutes of Health (NIH). Dr El Chaer reported receiving institutional research support from Celgene, Bristol Myers Squib, Amgen, Fibrogen, Sumitomo Pharma, and AbbVie and grants from Sanofi outside the submitted work. Dr Auletta reported serving on the AscellaHealth advisory board. Dr Devine reported being employed by the National Marrow Donor Program. Dr Jimenez Jimenez reported receiving research funding from AbbVie. Dr de Lima reported receiving grants from Pfizer; serving as a consultant for Pfizer and Bristol Myers Squibb; and serving on the data and safety monitoring boards of Novartis and AbbVie. Weisdorf reported receiving research support from Fate Therapeutics. Dr Hourigan reported the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Instituted received funding for research in the Laboratory of Myeloid Malignancies from Sellas and from the Foundation for the NIH’s Biomarkers Consortium. No other disclosures were reported.

Funding/Support: This work was supported by the Intramural Research Program of the NHLBI and by the National Institutes of Health Director’s Challenge Innovation Award. Sequencing was performed in the NHLBI Intramural DNA Sequencing and Genomics Core. Digital droplet polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was performed in the National Cancer Institute (NCI) Intramural CCR Genomics Core. The Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) is supported primarily by Public Health Service grant U24CA076518 from the NCI, NHLBI, and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID); grants U24HL138660 and U24HL157560 from the NHLBI and NCI; grant U24CA233032 from the NCI; grant OT3HL147741 and U01HL128568 from the NHLBI; grants HHSH250201700005C, HHSH250201700006C, and HHSH250201700007C from the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA); and grants N00014-20-1-2832 and N00014-21-1-2954 from the Office of Naval Research.

Data Sharing Statement: See Supplement 2.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article do not reflect the official policy or position of the National Institutes of Health, the Department of the Navy, the Department of Defense, Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), or any other agency of the US government.

References
1.
Döhner  H, Weisdorf  DJ, Bloomfield  CD.  Acute myeloid leukemia.   N Engl J Med. 2015;373(12):1136-1152. doi:10.1056/NEJMra1406184 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
2.
Ley  TJ, Miller  C, Ding  L,  et al; Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network.  Genomic and epigenomic landscapes of adult de novo acute myeloid leukemia.   N Engl J Med. 2013;368(22):2059-2074. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1301689 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
3.
Papaemmanuil  E, Gerstung  M, Bullinger  L,  et al.  Genomic classification and prognosis in acute myeloid leukemia.   N Engl J Med. 2016;374(23):2209-2221. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1516192 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
4.
Tyner  JW, Tognon  CE, Bottomly  D,  et al.  Functional genomic landscape of acute myeloid leukaemia.   Nature. 2018;562(7728):526-531. doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0623-z PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
5.
Bottomly  D, Long  N, Schultz  AR,  et al.  Integrative analysis of drug response and clinical outcome in acute myeloid leukemia.   Cancer Cell. 2022;40(8):850-864.e9. doi:10.1016/j.ccell.2022.07.002 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
6.
Patel  JP, Gönen  M, Figueroa  ME,  et al.  Prognostic relevance of integrated genetic profiling in acute myeloid leukemia.   N Engl J Med. 2012;366(12):1079-1089. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1112304 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
7.
Duncavage  EJ, Schroeder  MC, O’Laughlin  M,  et al.  Genome sequencing as an alternative to cytogenetic analysis in myeloid cancers.   N Engl J Med. 2021;384(10):924-935. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2024534 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
8.
Grimwade  D, Walker  H, Oliver  F,  et al. The Medical Research Council Adult and Children’s Leukaemia Working Parties.  The importance of diagnostic cytogenetics on outcome in AML: analysis of 1612 patients entered into the MRC AML 10 trial.   Blood. 1998;92(7):2322-2333. doi:10.1182/blood.V92.7.2322 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
9.
Stone  RM, Mandrekar  SJ, Sanford  BL,  et al.  Midostaurin plus chemotherapy for acute myeloid leukemia with a FLT3 mutation.   N Engl J Med. 2017;377(5):454-464. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1614359 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
10.
DiNardo  CD, Stein  EM, de Botton  S,  et al.  Durable remissions with ivosidenib in IDH1-mutated relapsed or refractory AML.   N Engl J Med. 2018;378(25):2386-2398. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1716984 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
11.
Perl  AE, Martinelli  G, Cortes  JE,  et al.  Gilteritinib or chemotherapy for relapsed or refractory FLT3-mutated AML.   N Engl J Med. 2019;381(18):1728-1740. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1902688 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
12.
Montesinos  P, Recher  C, Vives  S,  et al.  Ivosidenib and azacitidine in IDH1-mutated acute myeloid leukemia.   N Engl J Med. 2022;386(16):1519-1531. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2117344 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
13.
Tazi  Y, Arango-Ossa  JE, Zhou  Y,  et al.  Unified classification and risk-stratification in acute myeloid leukemia.   Nat Commun. 2022;13(1):4622. doi:10.1038/s41467-022-32103-8 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
14.
Döhner  H, Wei  AH, Appelbaum  FR,  et al.  Diagnosis and management of AML in adults: 2022 recommendations from an international expert panel on behalf of the ELN.   Blood. 2022;140(12):1345-1377. doi:10.1182/blood.2022016867 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
15.
Koreth  J, Schlenk  R, Kopecky  KJ,  et al.  Allogeneic stem cell transplantation for acute myeloid leukemia in first complete remission: systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective clinical trials.   JAMA. 2009;301(22):2349-2361. doi:10.1001/jama.2009.813 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
16.
Cornelissen  JJ, Versluis  J, Passweg  JR,  et al; HOVON; SAKK Leukemia Groups.  Comparative therapeutic value of post-remission approaches in patients with acute myeloid leukemia aged 40-60 years.   Leukemia. 2015;29(5):1041-1050. doi:10.1038/leu.2014.332 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
17.
Pollyea  DA, Bixby  D, Perl  A,  et al.  NCCN guidelines insights: acute myeloid leukemia, version 2.2021.   J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2021;19(1):16-27. doi:10.6004/jnccn.2021.0002 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
18.
Heuser  M, Freeman  SD, Ossenkoppele  GJ,  et al.  2021 update on MRD in acute myeloid leukemia: a consensus document from the European LeukemiaNet MRD Working Party.   Blood. 2021;138(26):2753-2767. doi:10.1182/blood.2021013626 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
19.
Buckley  SA, Wood  BL, Othus  M,  et al.  Minimal residual disease prior to allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation in acute myeloid leukemia: a meta-analysis.   Haematologica. 2017;102(5):865-873. doi:10.3324/haematol.2016.159343 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
20.
Araki  D, Wood  BL, Othus  M,  et al.  Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation for acute myeloid leukemia: time to move toward a minimal residual disease-based definition of complete remission?   J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(4):329-336. doi:10.1200/JCO.2015.63.3826 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
21.
Hourigan  CS, Gale  RP, Gormley  NJ, Ossenkoppele  GJ, Walter  RB.  Measurable residual disease testing in acute myeloid leukaemia.   Leukemia. 2017;31(7):1482-1490. doi:10.1038/leu.2017.113 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
22.
Jongen-Lavrencic  M, Grob  T, Hanekamp  D,  et al.  Molecular minimal residual disease in acute myeloid leukemia.   N Engl J Med. 2018;378(13):1189-1199. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1716863 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
23.
Short  NJ, Zhou  S, Fu  C,  et al.  Association of measurable residual disease with survival outcomes in patients with acute myeloid leukemia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.   JAMA Oncol. 2020;6(12):1890-1899. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.4600 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
24.
Hourigan  CS, Dillon  LW, Gui  G,  et al.  Impact of conditioning intensity of allogeneic transplantation for acute myeloid leukemia with genomic evidence of residual disease.   J Clin Oncol. 2020;38(12):1273-1283. doi:10.1200/JCO.19.03011 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
25.
Short  NJ, Fu  C, Berry  DA,  et al.  Association of hematologic response and assay sensitivity on the prognostic impact of measurable residual disease in acute myeloid leukemia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.   Leukemia. 2022;36(12):2817-2826. doi:10.1038/s41375-022-01692-0 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
26.
Paiva  B, Vidriales  MB, Sempere  A,  et al; PETHEMA (Programa para el Estudio de la Terapéutica en Hemopatías Malignas) cooperative study group.  Impact of measurable residual disease by decentralized flow cytometry: a PETHEMA real-world study in 1076 patients with acute myeloid leukemia.   Leukemia. 2021;35(8):2358-2370. doi:10.1038/s41375-021-01126-3 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
27.
Tettero  JM, Freeman  S, Buecklein  V,  et al.  Technical aspects of flow cytometry-based measurable residual disease quantification in acute myeloid leukemia: experience of the European LeukemiaNet MRD Working Party.   Hemasphere. 2021;6(1):e676. doi:10.1097/HS9.0000000000000676 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
28.
Schuurhuis  GJ, Heuser  M, Freeman  S,  et al.  Minimal/measurable residual disease in AML: a consensus document from the European LeukemiaNet MRD Working Party.   Blood. 2018;131(12):1275-1291. doi:10.1182/blood-2017-09-801498 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
29.
Klco  JM, Miller  CA, Griffith  M,  et al.  Association between mutation clearance after induction therapy and outcomes in acute myeloid leukemia.   JAMA. 2015;314(8):811-822. doi:10.1001/jama.2015.9643 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
30.
Levis  MJ, Perl  AE, Altman  JK,  et al.  A next-generation sequencing-based assay for minimal residual disease assessment in AML patients with FLT3-ITD mutations.   Blood Adv. 2018;2(8):825-831. doi:10.1182/bloodadvances.2018015925 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
31.
Thol  F, Gabdoulline  R, Liebich  A,  et al.  Measurable residual disease monitoring by NGS before allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation in AML.   Blood. 2018;132(16):1703-1713. doi:10.1182/blood-2018-02-829911 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
32.
Dillon  R, Hills  R, Freeman  S,  et al.  Molecular MRD status and outcome after transplantation in NPM1-mutated AML.   Blood. 2020;135(9):680-688. doi:10.1182/blood.2019002959 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
33.
Liang  EC, Chen  C, Lu  R, Mannis  GN, Muffly  L.  Measurable residual disease status and FLT3 inhibitor therapy in patients with FLT3-ITD mutated AML following allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation.   Bone Marrow Transplant. 2021;56(12):3091-3093. doi:10.1038/s41409-021-01475-8 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
34.
Loo  S, Dillon  R, Ivey  A,  et al.  Pretransplant FLT3-ITD MRD assessed by high-sensitivity PCR-NGS determines posttransplant clinical outcome.   Blood. 2022;140(22):2407-2411. doi:10.1182/blood.2022016567 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
35.
Murdock  HM, Kim  HT, Denlinger  N,  et al.  Impact of diagnostic genetics on remission MRD and transplantation outcomes in older patients with AML.   Blood. 2022;139(24):3546-3557. doi:10.1182/blood.2021014520 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
36.
Döhner  H, Estey  E, Grimwade  D,  et al.  Diagnosis and management of AML in adults: 2017 ELN recommendations from an international expert panel.   Blood. 2017;129(4):424-447. doi:10.1182/blood-2016-08-733196 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
37.
Jimenez Jimenez  AM, De Lima  M, Komanduri  KV,  et al.  An adapted European LeukemiaNet genetic risk stratification for acute myeloid leukemia patients undergoing allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant; a CIBMTR analysis.   Bone Marrow Transplant. 2021;56(12):3068-3077. doi:10.1038/s41409-021-01450-3 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
38.
Hong  S, Majhail  NS.  Increasing access to allotransplants in the United States: the impact of race, geography, and socioeconomics.   Hematology Am Soc Hematol Educ Program. 2021;2021(1):275-280. doi:10.1182/hematology.2021000259 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
39.
Gyurkocza  B, Sandmaier  BM.  Conditioning regimens for hematopoietic cell transplantation: one size does not fit all.   Blood. 2014;124(3):344-353. doi:10.1182/blood-2014-02-514778 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
40.
Craddock  C, Jackson  A, Loke  J,  et al.  Augmented reduced-intensity regimen does not improve postallogeneic transplant outcomes in acute myeloid leukemia.   J Clin Oncol. 2020;39(7):768-778. doi:10.1200/JCO.20.02308 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
41.
Gilleece  MH, Labopin  M, Yakoub-Agha  I,  et al.  Measurable residual disease, conditioning regimen intensity, and age predict outcome of allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation for acute myeloid leukemia in first remission: a registry analysis of 2292 patients by the Acute Leukemia Working Party European Society of Blood and Marrow Transplantation.   Am J Hematol. 2018;93(9):1142-1152. doi:10.1002/ajh.25211 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
42.
Levis  M.  Midostaurin approved for FLT3-mutated AML.   Blood. 2017;129(26):3403-3406. doi:10.1182/blood-2017-05-782292 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
43.
Zhou  Z, Nath  R, Cerny  J,  et al.  Reduced intensity conditioning for acute myeloid leukemia using melphalan- vs busulfan-based regimens: a CIBMTR report.   Blood Adv. 2020;4(13):3180-3190. doi:10.1182/bloodadvances.2019001266 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
44.
Baron  F, Labopin  M, Peniket  A,  et al.  Reduced-intensity conditioning with fludarabine and busulfan versus fludarabine and melphalan for patients with acute myeloid leukemia: a report from the Acute Leukemia Working Party of the European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation.   Cancer. 2015;121(7):1048-1055. doi:10.1002/cncr.29163 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
45.
Ivey  A, Hills  RK, Simpson  MA,  et al; UK National Cancer Research Institute AML Working Group.  Assessment of minimal residual disease in standard-risk AML.   N Engl J Med. 2016;374(5):422-433. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1507471 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
46.
Acute myeloid leukemia: developing drugs and biological products for treatment. Food and Drug Administration. August 2020. Accessed January 20, 2022. https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/acute-myeloid-leukemia-developing-drugs-and-biological-products-treatment
47.
Abraham  IE, Rauscher  GH, Patel  AA,  et al.  Structural racism is a mediator of disparities in acute myeloid leukemia outcomes.   Blood. 2022;139(14):2212-2226. doi:10.1182/blood.2021012830 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
48.
Burchert  A, Bug  G, Fritz  LV,  et al.  Sorafenib maintenance after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for acute myeloid leukemia with FLT3-internal tandem duplication mutation (SORMAIN).   J Clin Oncol. 2020;38(26):2993-3002. doi:10.1200/JCO.19.03345 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
49.
Platzbecker  U, Middeke  JM, Sockel  K,  et al.  Measurable residual disease-guided treatment with azacitidine to prevent haematological relapse in patients with myelodysplastic syndrome and acute myeloid leukaemia (RELAZA2): an open-label, multicentre, phase 2 trial.   Lancet Oncol. 2018;19(12):1668-1679. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30580-1 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
50.
Sorror  ML, Maris  MB, Storb  R,  et al.  Hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT)–specific comorbidity index: a new tool for risk assessment before allogeneic HCT.   Blood. 2005;106(8):2912-2919. doi:10.1182/blood-2005-05-2004 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
×