Page 19 - Haematologica - Vol. 105 n. 6 - June 2020

Editorials
t(8;21) subtype of CBF-AML. This study of 247 patients
from the United States and Europe identified older age, a
KIT D816V mutation, a high white blood count, and pseu-
dodiploidy compared with hyper- or hypodiploidy into a
scoring system called the I-CBFit. This scoring system
demonstrated a disease-free survival rate at two years of
76% in patients with a low-risk I-CBFit score compared
with 36% for those with a high-risk I-CBFit score (Figure 1).13
Whereas in the past, CBF-AML has been characterized and treated as a monolithic entity in terms of treatment and prognosis, one must now take into account the multi- ple clinical and laboratory characteristics in order to more expertly characterize the prognosis of these patients so as to design the most appropriate treatment plan and incor- porate decision-making toward use of alloBMT in first or second remission. The study by Halaburda and colleagues from the Acute Leukemia Working Party of the EBMT10 adds a valuable source of information to help understand the pros and cons of these approaches and the outcomes of patients who undergo transplant with CBF-AML in sec- ond remission.
References
1. Rowley JD. Identificaton of a translocation with quinacrine fluores- cence in a patient with acute leukemia. Ann Genet. 1973;16(2):109- 112.
2. Dohner 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.
3. Hills RK, Castaigne S, Appelbaum FR, et al. Addition of gemtuzum-
ab ozogamicin to induction chemotherapy in adult patients with acute myeloid leukaemia: a meta-analysis of individual patient data from randomised controlled trials. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15(9):986- 996.
4. Marcucci G, Mrozek K, Ruppert AS, et al. Prognostic factors and out- come of core binding factor acute myeloid leukemia patients with t(8;21) differ from those of patients with inv(16): a Cancer and Leukemia Group B study. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(24):5705-5717.
5. Ayatollahi H, Shajiei A, Sadeghian MH, et al. Prognostic Importance of C-KIT Mutations in Core Binding Factor Acute Myeloid Leukemia: A Systematic Review. Hematol Oncol Stem Cell Ther. 2017;10(1):1-7.
6. Duployez N, Marceau-Renaut A, Boissel N, et al. Comprehensive mutational profiling of core binding factor acute myeloid leukemia. Blood. 2016;127(20):2451-2459.
7. Prieto-Conde MI, Jimenez C, Garcia-Alvarez M, et al. Identification of relapse-associated gene mutations by next-generation sequencing in low-risk acute myeloid leukaemia patients. Br J Haematol. 2020 Mar 2. [Epub ahead of print]
8. Yin JA, O'Brien MA, Hills RK, Daly SB, Wheatley K, Burnett AK. Minimal residual disease monitoring by quantitative RT-PCR in core binding factor AML allows risk stratification and predicts relapse: results of the United Kingdom MRC AML-15 trial. Blood. 2012;120(14):2826-2835.
9. Hospital MA, Prebet T, Bertoli S, et al. Core-binding factor acute myeloid leukemia in first relapse: a retrospective study from the French AML Intergroup. Blood. 2014;124(8):1312-1319.
10. Halaburda K, Labopin M, Mailhol A, et al. Allogeneic stem cell transplantation in second complete remission for core binding factor acute myeloid leukemia: a study from the Acute Leukemia Working Party of the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation. Haematologica 2020;105(6):1723-1730.
11. Forman SJ, Rowe JM. The myth of the second remission of acute leukemia in the adult. Blood. 2013;121(7):1077-1082.
12. GerstungM,PapaemmanuilE,MartincorenaI,etal.Precisiononcol- ogy for acute myeloid leukemia using a knowledge bank approach. Nat Genet. 2017;49(3):332-340.
13. Ustun C, Morgan E, Moodie EEM, et al. Core-binding factor acute myeloid leukemia with t(8;21): Risk factors and a novel scoring sys- tem (I-CBFit). Cancer Med. 2018;7(9):4447-4455.
haematologica | 2020; 105(6)
1477