Prognostic impact of monosomal karyotype in young adult and elderly acute myeloid leukemia: the Southwest Oncology Group (SWOG) experience

Outcome of conditioning intensity in acute myeloid leukemia with monosomal karyotype in patients over 45 year‐old: A study from the acute leukemia working party (ALWP) of the European group of blood and marrow transplantation (EBMT)

“…The interval from diagnosis to SCT was not different between the two cohorts, and there is therefore no reason to suspect that one group received more intensive post-remission therapy before SCT. Age was not associated with outcomes in our analysis, which differs from previous reports, where the 4-year OS after SCT in patients aged 60 years or above was only 6% [9,21]. Within our cohort, patients over 60 years showed a reasonable 3-year OS of 34%, which is quite similar to that for the entire group.…”

“…MK AML is associated with a very poor outcome of less than 5% after chemotherapy alone [7,21]. Allogeneic SCT appears as the preferred therapeutic option, with long-term OS achievable in 20 2 30% [9,11,22].…”

“…High dose chemotherapy followed by autologous SCT has been shown to decrease relapse incidence, compared with conventional chemotherapy, but this benefit is mainly restricted to AML with good cytogenetics [26,27]. In fact, those observations do not support the use of high dose therapy and autologous SCT in bad-risk AML [28], which has intrinsic chemorefractory properties, as illustrated by their lower CR rate [21]. Allogeneic SCT therefore improves the outcomes for MK and other bad-risk AML [29] mainly because of a potent graftversus-leukemia effect, which has been proved by a net gain in OS and DFS [11].…”

Nonbiological factors affecting survival in younger patients with acute myeloid leukemia

“…For the same reasons, one needs to be careful when interpreting the impact of ICD-O-3 codes on survival. Biological categories that are well known to have a strong negative impact on survival (such as complex and monosomal karyotype) 35 are not identified in ICD-O-3 and it is possible that those cases are blended in the large reference group 9861/3. It is also interesting to note that some morphologically defined categories had an apparently protective effect (9873/3 and 9874/3), whereas another category had a detrimental effect (9910/3).…”

Monosomal Karyotypes among 1147 Chinese Patients with Acute Myeloid Leukemia: Prevalence, Features and Prognostic Impact

“…Cytogenetic abnormalities are found in approximately 55% of adult patients with AML and have long been recognized as a significant independent prognostic factor in AML (Mrozek et al, 2004). Several cooperative groups have risk stratified their patients into three main groups according to cytogenetic abnormalities: favorable, intermediate and unfavorable (Slovak et al, 2000;Byrd et al, 2002;Medeiros et al, 2010). Although each cooperative group has a different risk classification scheme, there is general consensus that the presence of t(15;17)(q22;q12), t(8;21) (q22;q22) or inv(16)(p13.1q22)/t(16,16)(p13.1;q22) predicts a relatively favorable outcome and, conversely, that cases of AML where cytogenetic analysis shows inv(3)(q21q26.2)/t(3,3)(q21; q26.2), del(5q), -5, -7 or a complex karyotype with 3 or more abnormalities generally have a very poor prognosis (Medeiros et al, 2010).abnormalities, referred to as monosomal karyotype (MK), has been identified as an independent unfavorable risk factor in AML (Breems et al, 2008).…”