Children with hyperdiploid but not triple trisomy (+4,+10,+17) acute lymphoblastic leukemia have an increased incidence of extramedullary relapse on current therapies: A single institution experience

Department of Pediatrics and Communicable Diseases, C.S. Mott Children's Hospital, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
American Journal of Hematology (Impact Factor: 3.48). 01/2008; 83(1):34-40. DOI: 10.1002/ajh.21011
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To evaluate the outcome of children with high hyperdiploid acute lymphoblastic leukemia (hHDALL) treated at the author's institution. One hundred thirty-five consecutive children with B-precursor ALL were diagnosed between 1991 and 2002: 38 (28.1%) hHDALL and 97 (71.9%) non-hHDALL. In the hHDALL group, 11/38 (28.9%) relapsed at a median interval of 2.8 years (range: 0.8-5.0 years) with 9/11 relapses occurring at the end or after the completion of therapy. Three (27.3%) relapses were isolated hematopoietic (BM), while eight (72.7%) were either isolated extramedullary (EM) relapses (n=6; Testis: 4; CNS: 2) or combined hematopoietic and extramedullary relapses (n=2; BM + CNS: 1; BM + Testis: 1). For the non-hHDALL group, 29/97 (29.9%) relapsed. Unlike the hHDALL group, the non-hHDALL group experienced hematopoietic relapses (62%; n=18) more frequently than isolated extramedullary (27.5%; n=8: Testis: 1; CNS: 7) or combined hematopoietic and extramedullary relapses (10.3%; CNS + BM: 3), with 24/29 (82.8%) of the relapses occurring on therapy. Relapses in hHDALL frequently involved EM sites (P=0.053). Presence of triple trisomy of +4,+10,+17 at diagnosis had a protective effect against relapse (P<0.05). Five-year EFS for the hHDALL and non-hHDALL patients was similar, 70.5+/-7.5% and 66.4+/-4.9%, respectively. Five-year OS for the hHDALL patients was significantly higher than for the non-hHDALL patients, 92+/-4.5% vs. 74.1+/-4.5%, P=0.038. Biologically significant differences exist between relapse patterns of hHDALL and non-hHDALL cases related to relapse sites and time periods when relapses occur. hHDALL relapses continue to be chemo-sensitive.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: High hyperdiploidy (51-67 chromosomes) is the most common cytogenetic abnormality pattern in childhood B-cell precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), occurring in 25-30% of such cases. High hyperdiploid ALL is characterized cytogenetically by a nonrandom gain of chromosomes X, 4, 6, 10, 14, 17, 18, and 21 and clinically by a favorable prognosis. Despite the high frequency of this karyotypic subgroup, many questions remain regarding the epidemiology, etiology, presence of other genetic changes, the time and cell of origin, and the formation and pathogenetic consequences of high hyperdiploidy. However, during the last few years, several studies have addressed some of these important issues, and these, as well as previous reports on high hyperdiploid childhood ALL, are reviewed herein.
    Genes Chromosomes and Cancer 08/2009; 48(8):637-60. DOI:10.1002/gcc.20671
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Despite the success of contemporary treatment protocols in childhood acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL), relapse within the central nervous system (CNS) remains a challenge. To better understand this phenomenon, we have analysed the changes in incidence and pattern of CNS relapses in 5564 children enrolled in four successive Medical Research Council-ALL trials between 1985 and 2001. Changes in the incidence and pattern of CNS relapses were examined and the relationship with patient characteristics was assessed. The factors affecting outcome after relapse were determined. Overall, relapses declined by 49%. Decreases occurred primarily in non-CNS and combined relapses with a progressive shift towards later (> or =30 months from diagnosis) relapses (P<0.0001). Although isolated CNS relapses declined, the proportional incidence and timing of relapse remained unchanged. Age and presenting white blood cell (WBC) count were risk factors for CNS relapse. On multivariate analysis, the time to relapse and the trial period influenced outcomes after relapse. Relapse trends differed within biological subtypes. In ETV6-RUNX1 ALL, relapse patterns mirrored overall trends whereas in high hyperdiploidy (HH) ALL, these seem to have plateaued over the latter two trial periods. Intensive systemic and intrathecal chemotherapy have decreased the overall CNS relapse rates and changed the patterns of recurrence. The heterogeneity of therapeutic response in the biological subtypes suggests room for further optimization using currently available chemotherapy.
    Leukemia: official journal of the Leukemia Society of America, Leukemia Research Fund, U.K 12/2009; 24(2):450-9. DOI:10.1038/leu.2009.264
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Central nervous system (CNS) recurrence continues to be a significant complication in the treatment of adult patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). Preventing CNS recurrence has been a therapeutic challenge and has not been addressed critically in many clinical trials. Adult studies modeled on childhood ALL studies have used multiple treatment modalities, including radiation therapy, systemic therapy, intrathecal therapy, and combinations thereof. Cranial irradiation is effective but is offset by substantial toxicity, including neurologic sequelae. Systemic chemotherapy, especially with cytarabine (AraC) and methotrexate, has demonstrated promise in decreasing CNS recurrence, but therapeutic levels of drugs in the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) are not maintained. Intrathecal chemotherapy with or without high-dose systemic therapy is the most common approach to CNS prophylaxis. Liposomal AraC recently has become available and confers prolonged levels of free AraC in the CSF, a critical requirement for CNS prophylactic therapy. This review discusses the various modalities used for CNS prophylaxis in patients with ALL and the emerging trends, with specific emphasis on the outcome in terms of event-free survival and toxicity.
    Cancer 03/2010; 116(10):2290-300. DOI:10.1002/cncr.25008
Show more