International Journal of Hematology

, Volume 73, Issue 1, pp 93–99

Morphological diagnoses of the Japan Adult Leukemia Study Group acute myeloid leukemia protocols: Central review

  • Kazutaka Kuriyama
  • Masao Tomonaga
  • Tohru Kobayashi
  • Jin Takeuchi
  • Toshiteru Ohshima
  • Shinppei Furusawa
  • Kenji Saitoh
  • Ryuzo Ohno
Review Article

Abstract

A morphological review system of the Japan Adult Leukemia Study Group has developed from the AML-87 through the AML-92 experience.We reviewed 1427 (90%) of 1592 cases enrolled in the AML-87, -89, or -92 protocols for morphology; 1408 (88%) were eligible. The rate of diagnostic concordance between each institute and the Committee on Morphological Diagnosis ranged from 76% to 80%. Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) subtypes were as follows: AML M0, 27 (2%); M1, 179 (13%); M2, 472 (34%); M3, 358 (25%); M4, 265 (19%); M5, 57 (4%); M6, 39 (3%); and M7, 11 (1%). The reason for the high number of patients with AML M3 is that many M3 patients were enrolled in the AML-92 protocol, which contained all-trans-retinoic acid. AML M0, M6 and M7 belonged to the poor prognostic groups. Auer bodies were found in 284 (53%) of 538 patients who survived significantly longer than those without Auer bodies in AML-87/-89. In AML-92 except for AML M3, 259 (43%) of 602 cases were Auer+ and also showed better survival rates. The survival of patients with >50% myeloperoxidase (MPO)-positive blast cells was better than those with ⩽50% MPO+ blast cells in AML-87/-89. This trend was also seen in AML-92 excluding M3. AML with trilineage dysplasia (AML/TLD) is characterized as a subtype of de novo AML that shows morphological dysplasia of mature hematopoietic cells on a background of leukemic blast cells.The number of patients with AML/TLD was 89 (16.5%) of 545 patients reviewed in AML-87/-89. AML-92, except for M3, showed a higher rate of patients with TLD (161 cases; 27.6%) because there were no patients with TLD in the AML M3 group. Survival rates for AML/TLD were worse than those for AML/non-TLD in both the AML-87/-89 and -92 protocols. Eighty percent of all cases (793/986) entered in AML-92 were analyzed cytogenetically. Fifty-one cases were not available for karyotyping because of a lack of mitoses or inappropriate preparations.The most frequent karyotype was normal, which accounted for 34.2%.The t(15;17), t(8;21), and inv(16) karyotypes, which are regarded as good risk factors, were 23.8%, 9.2%, and 1.6%, respectively. Abnormal chromosomes 5, 7, t(9;22), and t(6;9) were considered to be poor or intermediate risk factors. As a new system of karyotyping begins in the ongoing AML protocol, useful chromosomal data will be obtained in the near future.

Key words

Adult AML Morphological review FAB classification Myeloperoxidase Trilineage myelodysplasia 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Bennett JM, Catovsky D, Daniel MT, et al. Proposals for the classification of acute leukaemias.Br J Haematol. 1976;33:451–458.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bennett JM, Catovsky D, Daniel MT, et al. Proposed revised criteria for the classification of acute myeloid leukemia.Ann Intern Med. 1985;103:626–629.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bennett JM, Catovsky D, Daniel MT, et al. Criteria for the diagnosis of acute leukemia of megakaryocyte lineage (M7).Ann Intern Med. 1985;103:460–462.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bennett JM, Catovsky D, Daniel MT, et al. Proposal for the recognition of minimally differentiated acute myeloid leukaemia (AML-M0).Br J Haematol. 1991;78:325–329.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ohno R, Kobayashi T, Tanimoto M, et al. Randomized study of individualized induction therapy with or without vincristine, and of maintenance-intensification therapy between 4 or 12 courses in adult acute myeloid leukemia.Cancer. 1993;71:3888–3895.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kobayashi T, Miyawaki S, Tanimoto M, et al. Randomized trials between behenoyl cytarabine and cytarabine in combination induction and consolidation therapy, and with or without uben-imex after maintenance/intensification therapy in adult acute myeloid leukemia. The Japan Leukemia Study Group.J Clin Oncol. 1996;14:204–213.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Miyawaki S, Tanimoto M, Kobayashi T, et al. No beneficial effect from addition of etoposide to daunorubicin, cytarabine, and 6-mercaptopurine in individualized induction therapy of adult acute myeloid leukemia: the JALSG-AML92 study. Japan Adult Leukemia Study Group.Int J Hematol. 1999;70:97–104.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kanamaru A, Takemoto Y, Tanimoto M, et al. All-trans retinoic acid for the treatment of newly diagnosed acute promyelocytic leukemia.Blood. 1995;85:1202–1206.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Asou N, Adachi K, Tamura J, et al. Analysis of prognostic factors in newly diagnosed acute promyelocytic leukemia treated with all-trans retinoic acid and chemotherapy.J Clin Oncol. 1998;16:78–85.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tulliez M, Breton-Gorius J. Three types of Auer bodies in acute leukemia. Visualization of their protein by negative contrast after peroxidase cytochemistry.Lab Invest. 1979;41:419–426.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hassan HT, Rees JK. Auer bodies in acute myeloid leukaemia patients.Pathol Res Pract. 1990;186:293–295.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Scott CS, Den Ottolander GJ, Swirsky D, et al. Recommended procedures for the classification of acute leukaemias.Leuk Lymphoma. 1995;18(Suppl 1):1–12.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Brito-Babapulle F, Catovsky D, Galton DA. Clinical and laboratory features of de novo acute myeloid leukaemia with trilineage myelodysplasia.Br J Haematol. 1987;66:445–450.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kuriyama K, Tomonaga M, Matsuo T, et al. Poor response to intensive chemotherapy in de novo acute myeloid leukaemia with trilineage myelodysplasia. Japan Adult Leukaemia Study Group (JALSG).Br J Haematol. 1994;86:767–773.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Estienne MH, Fenaux P, Preudhomme C, et al. Prognostic value of dysmyelopoietic features in de novo acute myeloid leukaemia: a report on 132 patients.Clin Lab Haematol. 1990;12:57–65.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Goasguen JE, Matsuo T, Cox C, Bennett JM. Evaluation of the dysmyelopoiesis in 336 patients with de novo acute myeloid leukemia: major importance of dysgranulopoiesis for remission and survival.Leukemia. 1992;6:520–525.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schiffer CA, Lee EJ, Tomiyasu T, Wiernik PH, Testa JR. Prognostic impact of cytogenetic abnormalities in patients with de novo acute nonlymphocytic leukemia.Blood. 1989;73:263–270.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Grimwade D, Walker H, Oliver F, et al. The importance of diagnostic cytogenetics on outcome in AML: analysis of 1,612 patients entered into the MRC AML 10 trial.The Medical Research Council Adult and Children’s Leukaemia Working Parties.Blood. 1998;92:2322–2333.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dastugue N, Payen C, Lafage-Pochitaloff M, et al. Prognostic significance of karyotype in de novo adult acute myeloid leukemia.Leukemia. 1995;9:1491–1498.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Buchner T, Hiddemann W, Wormann B, et al. Double induction strategy for acute myeloid leukemia: the effect of high-dose cytarabine with mitoxantrone instead of standard-dose cytarabine with daunorubicin and 6-thioguanine: a randomized trial by the German AML Cooperative Group.Blood. 1999;93:4116–4124.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Leith CP, Kopecky KJ, Godwin J, et al. Acute myeloid leukemia in the elderly: assessment of multidrug resistance (MDR1) and cyto-genetics distinguishes biologic subgroups with remarkably distinct responses to standard chemotherapy. A Southwest Oncology Group Study.Blood. 1997;89:3323–3329.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Fenaux P, Preudhomme C, Lai JL, Morel P, Beuscart R, Bauters F. Cytogenetics and their prognostic value in de novo acute myeloid leukaemia: a report on 283 cases.Br J Haematol. 1989;73:61–67.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hann IM, Stevens RF, Goldstone AH, et al. Randomized comparison of DAT versus ADE as induction chemotherapy in children and younger adults with acute myeloid leukemia. Results of the Medical Research Council’s 10th AML trial (MRC AML10).Blood. 1997;89:2311–2318.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Cassileth PA, Lynch E, Hines JD, et al. Varying intensity of postremission therapy in acute myeloid leukemia.Blood. 1992;79:1924–1930.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mayer RJ, Davis RB, Schiffer CA, et al. Intensive postremission chemotherapy in adults with acute myeloid leukemia.N Engl J Med. 1994;331:896–903.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Douer D, Preston-Martin S, Chang E, Nichols PW, Watkins KJ, Levine AM. High frequency of acute promyelocytic leukemia among Latinos with acute myeloid leukemia.Blood. 1996;87:308–313.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Stasi R, Del Poeta G, Venditti A, et al. Analysis of treatment failure in patients with minimally differentiated acute myeloid leukemia (AML-M0).Blood. 1994;83:1619–1625.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Olopade OI, Thangavelu M, Larson RA, et al. Clinical, morphologic, and cytogenetic characteristics of 26 patients with acute erythroblastic leukemia.Blood. 1992;80:2873–2882.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Cuneo A, Mecucci C, Kerim S, et al. Multipotent stem cell involvement in megakaryoblastic leukemia: cytologic and cytogenetic evidence in 15 patients.Blood. 1989;74:1781–1790.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hoyle CF, Gray RG, Wheatley K, et al. Prognostic importance of Sudan Black positivity: a study of bone marrow slides from 1,386 patients with de novo acute myeloid leukaemia.Br J Haematol. 1991;79:398–407.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Matsuo T, Cox C, Bennett JM. Prognostic significance of myeloperoxidase positivity of blast cells in acute myeloblastic leukemia without maturation (FAB: M1): an ECOG study.Hematol Pathol. 1989;3:153–158.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Jinnai I, Tomonaga M, Kuriyama K, et al. Dysmegakaryocytopoiesis in acute leukaemias: its predominance in myelomonocytic (M4) leukaemia and implication for poor response to chemotherapy.Br J Haematol. 1987;66:467–472.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Bennett JM, Catovsky D, Daniel MT, et al: Proposals for the classification of myelodysplastic syndromes.Br J Haematol. 1982;51:189–199.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Harris NL, Jaffe ES, Diebold J, et al. World Health Organization classification of neoplastic diseases of the hematopoietic and lymphoid tissues: report of the Clinical Advisory Committee meeting— Airlie House, Virginia, November 1997.J Clin Oncol. 1999;17:3835–3849.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Bennett JM. WHO classification of the acute leukemias and myelodysplastic syndrome.Int J Hematol. 2000;72:131–133.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Taguchi J, Miyazaki Y, Yoshida S, et al. Allogeneic bone marrow transplantation improves the outcome of de novo AML with trilineage dysplasia (AML-TLD).Leukemia. 2000;14:1861–1866.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Wheatley K, Burnett AK, Goldstone AH, et al. A simple, robust, validated and highly predictive index for the determination of risk-directed therapy in acute myeloid leukaemia derived from the MRC AML 10 trial. United Kingdom Medical Research Council’s Adult and Childhood Leukaemia Working Parties.Br J Haematol. 1999;107:69–79.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Bloomfield CD, Lawrence D, Byrd JC, et al. Frequency of prolonged remission duration after high-dose cytarabine intensification in acute myeloid leukemia varies by cytogenetic subtype.Cancer Res. 1998;58:4173–4179.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Byrd JC, Dodge RK, Carroll A, et al. Patients with t(8;21)(q22;q22) and acute myeloid leukemia have superior failure-free and overall survival when repetitive cycles of high-dose cytarabine are administered.J Clin Oncol. 1999;17:3767–3775.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Japanese Society of Hematology 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kazutaka Kuriyama
    • 1
  • Masao Tomonaga
    • 1
  • Tohru Kobayashi
    • 2
  • Jin Takeuchi
    • 3
  • Toshiteru Ohshima
    • 4
  • Shinppei Furusawa
    • 5
  • Kenji Saitoh
    • 5
  • Ryuzo Ohno
    • 6
  1. 1.Department of Hematology and Molecular Medicine, Atomic Bomb Disease InstituteNagasaki University School of MedicineNagasakiJapan
  2. 2.Second Department of Internal MedicineMie University School of MedicineTsuJapan
  3. 3.First Department of Internal MedicineNihon University School of MedicineTokyoJapan
  4. 4.Sekishindo HospitalKawagoeJapan
  5. 5.Department of HematologyDokkyo University School of MedicineTochigiJapan
  6. 6.Department of Medicine IIIHamamatsu Medical SchoolHamamatsuJapan
  7. 7.Department of Hematology and Molecular Medicine, Atomic Bomb Disease InstituteNagasaki University School of MedicineNagasakiJapan

Personalised recommendations