No benefit of Interfant protocols compared to BFM‐based protocols for infants with acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Results from an institution in Argentina

Author:

Pennella Carla L.1ORCID,Deu María A.1,Rossi Jorge G.2,Baialardo Edgardo M.3,Alonso Cristina N.1,Rubio Patricia1,Guitter Myriam R.1,La Rosa Cristian G. Sánchez1,Alfaro Elizabeth M.1,Zubizarreta Pedro A.1,Felice María S.1

Affiliation:

1. Department of Hematology‐Oncology Hospital de Pediatría S.A.M.I.C Prof. Dr. Juan P. Garrahan Buenos Aires Argentina

2. Department of Immunology and Rheumatology Hospital de Pediatría S.A.M.I.C Prof. Dr. Juan P. Garrahan Buenos Aires Argentina

3. Department of Genetics Hospital de Pediatría S.A.M.I.C Prof. Dr. Juan P. Garrahan Buenos Aires Argentina

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundInfant acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) is an infrequent disease characterized by clinical and biological features related to poor prognosis. Adapted therapies were designed without a clear consensus regarding the best treatment options. We aimed to compare the outcome between infant ALL cases receiving Interfant versus BFM‐based protocols.ProcedureThis is a retrospective observational study. From April 1990 to June 2018, infant ALL cases were enrolled in one of the five consecutive treatment protocols. Clinical, demographic, and biological features and outcome were evaluated. A comparative analysis was performed between Interfant protocols and BFM‐based protocols.ResultsDuring the studied period, 1913 ALL patients were admitted and 116 (6%) were infants. Treatment administered was: ALL‐BFM’90 (n = 16), 1‐ALL96‐BFM/HPG (n = 7), Interfant‐99 (n = 39), Interfant‐06 (n = 35), and ALLIC‐BFM’2009 (n = 19). The 5‐year event‐free survival probability (EFSp) was 31.9(standard error [SE] 4.6)% for the entire population, with a significant difference among risk groups according to Interfant‐06 criteria (P = .0029). KMT2A‐rearrangement status was the strongest prognostic factor (P = .048), independently of the protocol strategy. The median time for relapse was 24.1 months for patients with minimal residual disease (MRD)‐negative versus 11.5 months for those with MRD‐positive (P = .0386). EFSp and cumulative relapse risk probability (CRRp) were similar. Interfant protocols showed comparable induction (8.1% vs 7.1%, P = .852) and complete remission mortality (21.6% vs 28.6%, P = .438), failing to reduce the relapse rate (48.5% vs 30.7%, P = .149).ConclusionsInterfant protocols and BFM‐based protocols presented comparable results. The risk group stratification proposed by Interfant‐06 was validated by our results, and MRD seems useful to identify patients with an increased risk of early relapse.

Publisher

Wiley

Cited by 1 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.7亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2025 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3