Survival difference between secondary and de novo acute myeloid leukemia by age, antecedent cancer types, and chemotherapy receipt.
Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)
acute myeloid leukemia (AML)
antecedent cancer
secondary AML
survival
survival trends
Journal
Cancer
ISSN: 1097-0142
Titre abrégé: Cancer
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0374236
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
20 Jan 2024
20 Jan 2024
Historique:
revised:
13
11
2023
received:
09
09
2023
accepted:
27
12
2023
medline:
20
1
2024
pubmed:
20
1
2024
entrez:
20
1
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
This study compared the survival of persons with secondary acute myeloid leukemia (sAML) to those with de novo AML (dnAML) by age at AML diagnosis, chemotherapy receipt, and cancer type preceding sAML diagnosis. Data from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results 17 Registries were used, which included 47,704 individuals diagnosed with AML between 2001 and 2018. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression was used to compare AML-specific survival between sAML and dnAML. Trends in 5-year age-standardized relative survival were examined via the Joinpoint survival model. Overall, individuals with sAML had an 8% higher risk of dying from AML (hazard ratio [HR], 1.08; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.05-1.11) compared to those with dnAML. Disparities widened with younger age at diagnosis, particularly in those who received chemotherapy for AML (HR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.10-1.19). In persons aged 20-64 years and who received chemotherapy, HRs were greatest for those with antecedent myelodysplastic syndrome (HR, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.83-2.28), ovarian cancer (HR, 1.91; 95% CI, 1.19-3.08), head and neck cancer (HR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.02-2.36), leukemia (HR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.12-1.89), and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (HR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.20-1.69). Among those aged ≥65 years and who received chemotherapy, HRs were highest for those with antecedent cervical cancer (HR, 2.42; 95% CI, 1.15-5.10) and myelodysplastic syndrome (HR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.19-1.38). The 5-year relative survival improved 0.3% per year for sAML slower than 0.86% per year for dnAML. Consequently, the survival gap widened from 7.2% (95% CI, 5.4%-9.0%) during the period 2001-2003 to 14.3% (95% CI, 12.8%-15.8%) during the period 2012-2014. Significant survival disparities exist between sAML and dnAML on the basis of age at diagnosis, chemotherapy receipt, and antecedent cancer, which highlights opportunities to improve outcomes among those diagnosed with sAML.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
This study compared the survival of persons with secondary acute myeloid leukemia (sAML) to those with de novo AML (dnAML) by age at AML diagnosis, chemotherapy receipt, and cancer type preceding sAML diagnosis.
METHODS
METHODS
Data from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results 17 Registries were used, which included 47,704 individuals diagnosed with AML between 2001 and 2018. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression was used to compare AML-specific survival between sAML and dnAML. Trends in 5-year age-standardized relative survival were examined via the Joinpoint survival model.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Overall, individuals with sAML had an 8% higher risk of dying from AML (hazard ratio [HR], 1.08; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.05-1.11) compared to those with dnAML. Disparities widened with younger age at diagnosis, particularly in those who received chemotherapy for AML (HR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.10-1.19). In persons aged 20-64 years and who received chemotherapy, HRs were greatest for those with antecedent myelodysplastic syndrome (HR, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.83-2.28), ovarian cancer (HR, 1.91; 95% CI, 1.19-3.08), head and neck cancer (HR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.02-2.36), leukemia (HR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.12-1.89), and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (HR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.20-1.69). Among those aged ≥65 years and who received chemotherapy, HRs were highest for those with antecedent cervical cancer (HR, 2.42; 95% CI, 1.15-5.10) and myelodysplastic syndrome (HR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.19-1.38). The 5-year relative survival improved 0.3% per year for sAML slower than 0.86% per year for dnAML. Consequently, the survival gap widened from 7.2% (95% CI, 5.4%-9.0%) during the period 2001-2003 to 14.3% (95% CI, 12.8%-15.8%) during the period 2012-2014.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Significant survival disparities exist between sAML and dnAML on the basis of age at diagnosis, chemotherapy receipt, and antecedent cancer, which highlights opportunities to improve outcomes among those diagnosed with sAML.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Subventions
Organisme : American Cancer Society
Informations de copyright
© 2024 American Cancer Society.
Références
Kündgen A, Nomdedeu M, Tuechler H, et al. Therapy-related myelodysplastic syndromes deserve specific diagnostic sub-classification and risk-stratification-an approach to classification of patients with t-MDS. Leukemia. 2021;35(3):835-849. doi:10.1038/s41375-020-0917-7
Khoury JD, Solary E, Abla O, et al. The 5th edition of the World Health Organization classification of haematolymphoid tumours: myeloid and histiocytic/dendritic neoplasms. Leukemia. 2022;36(7):1703-1719. doi:10.1038/s41375-022-01613-1
Granfeldt Østgård LS, Medeiros BC, Sengeløv H, et al. Epidemiology and clinical significance of secondary and therapy-related acute myeloid leukemia: a national population-based cohort study. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(31):3641-3649. doi:10.1200/jco.2014.60.0890
Hulegårdh E, Nilsson C, Lazarevic V, et al. Characterization and prognostic features of secondary acute myeloid leukemia in a population-based setting: a report from the Swedish Acute Leukemia Registry. Am J Hematol. 2015;90(3):208-214. doi:10.1002/ajh.23908
Kuykendall A, Duployez N, Boissel N, Lancet JE, Welch JS. Acute myeloid leukemia: the good, the bad, and the ugly. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book. 2018;38:555-573. doi:10.1200/edbk_199519
Morton LM, Dores GM, Schonfeld SJ, et al. Association of chemotherapy for solid tumors with development of therapy-related myelodysplastic syndrome or acute myeloid leukemia in the modern era. JAMA Oncol. 2019;5(3):318-325. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2018.5625
Bhatt VR, Giri S, Verma V, et al. Secondary acute myeloid leukemia in survivors of Hodgkin lymphoma. Future Oncol. 2016;12(13):1565-1575. doi:10.2217/fon-2016-0048
Pehalova L, Krejci D, Halamkova J, Smardova L, Snajdrova L, Dusek L. Significant current epidemiological trend: haematological malignancies as subsequent primary tumours in cancer patients. Cancer Epidemiol. 2021;72:101929. doi:10.1016/j.canep.2021.101929
Larson RA. Is secondary leukemia an independent poor prognostic factor in acute myeloid leukemia? Best Pract Res Clin Haematol. 2007;20(1):29-37. doi:10.1016/j.beha.2006.10.006
Bertoli S, Tavitian S, Bories P, et al. Outcome of patients aged 60-75 years with newly diagnosed secondary acute myeloid leukemia: a single-institution experience. Cancer Med. 2019;8(8):3846-3854. doi:10.1002/cam4.2020
Keegan THM, Bleyer A, Rosenberg AS, Li Q, Goldfarb M. Second primary malignant neoplasms and survival in adolescent and young adult cancer survivors. JAMA Oncol. 2017;3(11):1554-1557. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2017.0465
Boddu P, Kantarjian HM, Garcia-Manero G, et al. Treated secondary acute myeloid leukemia: a distinct high-risk subset of AML with adverse prognosis. Blood Adv. 2017;1(17):1312-1323. doi:10.1182/bloodadvances.2017008227
SEER*Stat Database: Incidence-SEER Research Plus Data, 17 Registries, Nov 2021 Sub (2000-2019)-Linked to County Attributes-Time Dependent (1990-2019) Income/Rurality, 1969-2020 Counties. Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program, National Cancer Institute. Released April 2022; based on the November 2021 submission. Accessed November 2, 2023. https://seer.cancer.gov/data-software/documentation/seerstat/nov2021/
Swerdlow SH, Campo E, Harris NL, et al. WHO Classification of Tumours of Haematopoietic and Lymphoid Tissues. Vol 2. International Agency for Research on Cancer; 2008.
SEER Cause of Death Recode. Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program, National Cancer Institute. Accessed February 3, 2023. https://seer.cancer.gov/codrecode/
SEER Cause-Specific Death Classification. Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program, National Cancer Institute. Accessed April 26, 2021. https://seer.cancer.gov/causespecific/
Expected Survival Life Tables for SEER*Stat Software. Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program, National Cancer Institute. Accessed February 27, 2023. https://seer.cancer.gov/expsurvival/
Mariotto AB, Noone AM, Howlader N, et al. Cancer survival: an overview of measures, uses, and interpretation. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2014;2014(49):145-186. doi:10.1093/jncimonographs/lgu024
JPSurv: Joinpoint Survival Model. Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute. Accessed October 27, 2022. https://analysistools.cancer.gov/jpsurv/
Yu B, Huang L, Tiwari RC, Feuer EJ, Johnson KA. Modelling population-based cancer survival trends by using join point models for grouped survival data. J R Stat Soc Ser A Stat Soc. 2009;172(2):405-425. doi:10.1111/j.1467-985x.2009.00580.x
Mariotto AB, Zhang F, Buckman DW, Miller D, Cho H, Feuer EJ. Characterizing trends in cancer patients' survival using the JPSurv software. Cancer Epidemiol Prev Biomarkers. 2021;30(11):2001-2009. doi:10.1158/1055-9965.epi-21-0423
Health Disparities Calculator (HD*Calc), Version 2.0.0. 2019. Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute. Accessed December 1, 2022. https://seer.cancer.gov/hdcalc/
Capelli D, Menotti D, Fiorentini A, Saraceni F, Olivieri A. Secondary acute myeloid leukemia: pathogenesis and treatment. In: Li W, ed. Leukemia. Exon Publications; 2022:111-127.
Schoch C, Kern W, Schnittger S, Hiddemann W, Haferlach T. Karyotype is an independent prognostic parameter in therapy-related acute myeloid leukemia (t-AML): an analysis of 93 patients with t-AML in comparison to 1091 patients with de novo AML. Leukemia. 2004;18(1):120-125. doi:10.1038/sj.leu.2403187
Smith SM, Le Beau MM, Huo D, et al. Clinical-cytogenetic associations in 306 patients with therapy-related myelodysplasia and myeloid leukemia: the University of Chicago series. Blood. 2003;102(1):43-52. doi:10.1182/blood-2002-11-3343
Martínez-Cuadrón D, Megías-Vericat JE, Serrano J, et al. Treatment patterns and outcomes of 2310 patients with secondary acute myeloid leukemia: a PETHEMA registry study. Blood Adv. 2022;6(4):1278-1295. doi:10.1182/bloodadvances.2021005335
Short NJ, Venugopal S, Qiao W, et al. Impact of frontline treatment approach on outcomes in patients with secondary AML with prior hypomethylating agent exposure. J Hematol Oncol. 2022;15:12. doi:10.1186/s13045-022-01229-z
Creutzig U, Büchner T, Sauerland MC, et al. Significance of age in acute myeloid leukemia patients younger than 30 years: a common analysis of the pediatric trials AML-BFM 93/98 and the adult trials AMLCG 92/99 and AMLSG HD93/98A. Cancer. 2008;112(3):562-571. doi:10.1002/cncr.23220
Tomizawa D, Tanaka S, Kondo T, et al. Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for adolescents and young adults with acute myeloid leukemia. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2017;23(9):1515-1522. doi:10.1016/j.bbmt.2017.05.009
Kayser S, Doehner K, Krauter J, et al. The impact of therapy-related acute myeloid leukemia (AML) on outcome in 2853 adult patients with newly diagnosed AML. Blood. 2011;117(7):2137-2145. doi:10.1182/blood-2010-08-301713
Klepin HD, Estey E, Kadia T. More versus less therapy for older adults with acute myeloid leukemia: new perspectives on an old debate. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book. 2019;39:421-432. doi:10.1200/edbk_239097
Kantarjian H. Acute myeloid leukemia-major progress over four decades and glimpses into the future. Am J Hematol. 2016;91(1):131-145. doi:10.1002/ajh.24246
Rodriguez-Galindo C, Poquette CA, Marina NM, et al. Hematologic abnormalities and acute myeloid leukemia in children and adolescents administered intensified chemotherapy for the Ewing sarcoma family of tumors. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol. 2000;22(4):321-329. doi:10.1097/00043426-200007000-00008
Bhatia S, Krailo MD, Chen Z, et al. Therapy-related myelodysplasia and acute myeloid leukemia after Ewing sarcoma and primitive neuroectodermal tumor of bone: a report from the Children's Oncology Group. Blood. 2007;109(1):46-51. doi:10.1182/blood-2006-01-023101
Bhatia S. Therapy-related myelodysplasia and acute myeloid leukemia. Semin Oncol. 2013;40(6):666-675.
Arber DA, Orazi A, Hasserjian R, et al. The 2016 revision to the World Health Organization classification of myeloid neoplasms and acute leukemia. Blood. 2016;127(20):2391-2405. doi:10.1182/blood-2016-03-643544
Travis LB, Holowaty EJ, Bergfeldt K, et al. Risk of leukemia after platinum-based chemotherapy for ovarian cancer. N Engl J Med. 1999;340(5):351-357. doi:10.1056/nejm199902043400504
Travis LB, Curtis RE, Glimelius B, et al. Second cancers among long-term survivors of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1993;85(23):1932-1937. doi:10.1093/jnci/85.23.1932
Casás-Selves M, DeGregori J. How cancer shapes evolution and how evolution shapes cancer. Evolution. 2011;4(4):624-634. doi:10.1007/s12052-011-0373-y
Tang C, Li M-H, Chen Y-L, et al. Chemotherapy-induced niche perturbs hematopoietic reconstitution in B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia. J Exp Clin Cancer Res. 2018;37:204. doi:10.1186/s13046-018-0859-3
Lucas D, Scheiermann C, Chow A, et al. Chemotherapy-induced bone marrow nerve injury impairs hematopoietic regeneration. Nat Med. 2013;19(6):695-703. doi:10.1038/nm.3155
Leith CP, Kopecky KJ, Godwin J, et al. Acute myeloid leukemia in the elderly: assessment of multidrug resistance (MDR1) and cytogenetics distinguishes biologic subgroups with remarkably distinct responses to standard chemotherapy. A Southwest Oncology Group study. Blood. 1997;89(9):3323-3329. doi:10.1182/blood.v89.9.3323
Wahlin A, Markevärn B, Golovleva I, Nilsson M. Prognostic significance of risk group stratification in elderly patients with acute myeloid leukaemia. Br J Haematol. 2001;115(1):25-33. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2141.2001.03043.x
Bello C, Yu D, Komrokji RS, et al. Outcomes after induction chemotherapy in patients with acute myeloid leukemia arising from myelodysplastic syndrome. Cancer. 2011;117(7):1463-1469. doi:10.1002/cncr.25598
Fabiani E, Falconi G, Fianchi L, et al. Clonal evolution in therapy-related neoplasms. Oncotarget. 2017;8(7):12031-12040. doi:10.18632/oncotarget.14509
Marcadis AR, Marti JL, Ehdaie B, Hakimi AA, Davies L, Morris LGT. Characterizing relative and disease-specific survival in early-stage cancers. JAMA Intern Med. 2020;180(3):461-463. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.6120
Welch HG, Kramer BS, Black WC. Epidemiologic signatures in cancer. N Engl J Med. 2019;381(14):1378-1386. doi:10.1056/NEJMsr1905447
Godley LA, Larson RA. Therapy-related myeloid leukemia. Semin Oncol. 2008;35(4):418-429.
Juliusson G, Antunovic P, Derolf Å, et al. Age and acute myeloid leukemia: real world data on decision to treat and outcomes from the Swedish Acute Leukemia Registry. Blood. 2009;113(18):4179-4187. doi:10.1182/blood-2008-07-172007
Mengis C, Aebi S, Tobler A, Dähler W, Fey MF. Assessment of differences in patient populations selected for or excluded from participation in clinical phase III acute myelogenous leukemia trials. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21(21):3933-3939. doi:10.1200/jco.2003.03.186
Zhou H, Huang Y, Qiu Z, et al. Impact of prior cancer history on the overall survival of patients newly diagnosed with cancer: a pan-cancer analysis of the SEER database. Int J Cancer. 2018;143(7):1569-1577. doi:10.1002/ijc.31543
Kim ES, Bruinooge SS, Roberts S, et al. Broadening eligibility criteria to make clinical trials more representative: American Society of Clinical Oncology and Friends of Cancer Research joint research statement. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(33):3737-3744. doi:10.1200/jco.2017.73.7916
Sorror ML, Storer BE, Fathi AT, et al. Development and validation of a novel acute myeloid leukemia-composite model to estimate risks of mortality. JAMA Oncol. 2017;3(12):1675-1682. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2017.2714
Short NJ, Tallman MS, Pollyea DA, Ravandi F, Kantarjian H. Optimizing risk stratification in acute myeloid leukemia: dynamic models for a dynamic therapeutic landscape. J Clin Oncol. 2021;39(23):2535-2538. doi:10.1200/jco.21.00067
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
Im C, Sharafeldin N, Yuan Y, et al. Polygenic risk and chemotherapy-related subsequent malignancies in childhood cancer survivors: a Childhood Cancer Survivor Study and St Jude Lifetime Cohort Study report. J Clin Oncol. 2023;41(27):4381-4393.
Marrero RJ, Lamba JK. Current landscape of genome-wide association studies in acute myeloid leukemia: a review. Cancers. 2023;15(14):3583. doi:10.3390/cancers15143583
Baudino TA. Targeted cancer therapy: the next generation of cancer treatment. Curr Drug Discov Technol. 2015;12(1):3-20. doi:10.2174/1570163812666150602144310
Noone AM, Lund JL, Mariotto A, et al. Comparison of SEER treatment data with Medicare claims. Med Care. 2016;54(9):e55-e64. doi:10.1097/mlr.0000000000000073