Advertisement

Current Hematologic Malignancy Reports

, Volume 5, Issue 3, pp 169–176 | Cite as

Progress of Minimal Residual Disease Studies in Childhood Acute Leukemia

  • Dario CampanaEmail author
Article

Abstract

Submorphologic (ie, minimal) residual disease (MRD) can be monitored in virtually all children and adolescents with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) or acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) using methods such as flow cytometric detection of leukemic immunophenotypes or polymerase chain reaction amplification of fusion transcripts, gene mutations, and clonal rearrangements of antigen-receptor genes. Numerous studies have demonstrated the clinical importance of measuring MRD, spurring the design of clinical trials in which MRD is used for risk assignment and treatment selection. Emerging results from these trials suggest that the adverse prognostic impact of low levels of MRD during the early phases of therapy can be diminished by treatment intensification. This article discusses the methods used for detecting MRD in childhood AML and ALL, the data obtained in studies correlating MRD with treatment outcome, the results of the initial trials using MRD, and the practical aspects related to the design of MRD-based clinical studies.

Keywords

Acute myeloid leukemia Acute lymphoblastic leukemia Flow cytometry Polymerase chain reaction 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by grants CA60419, CA115422, and CA21765 from the National Cancer Institute, and by the American Lebanese Syrian Associated Charities (ALSAC).

Disclosure

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance

  1. 1.
    Jacquillat C, Weil M, Gemon MF, et al.: Combination therapy in 130 patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (protocol 06 LA 66-Paris). Cancer Res 1973, 33:3278–3284.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    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
  3. 3.
    Sandlund JT, Harrison PL, Rivera G, et al.: Persistence of lymphoblasts in bone marrow on day 15 and days 22 to 25 of remission induction predicts a dismal treatment outcome in children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Blood 2002, 100:43–47.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Campana D: Status of minimal residual disease testing in childhood haematological malignancies. Br J Haematol 2008, 143:481–489.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Szczepanski T, Orfao A, van der Velden VH, et al.: Minimal residual disease in leukaemia patients. Lancet Oncol 2001, 2:409–417.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Coustan-Smith E, Ribeiro RC, Rubnitz JE, et al.: Clinical significance of residual disease during treatment in childhood acute myeloid leukemia. Br J Haematol 2003, 123:243–252.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    • Rubnitz JE, Inaba H, Dahl GV, et al.: Minimal residual disease-directed therapy for childhood acute myeloid leukemia: results of the AML02 multicentre trial. Lancet Oncol 2010, in press. This is the first childhood AML study using MRD for risk assignment.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Boeckx N, Willemse MJ, Szczepanski T, et al.: Fusion gene transcripts and Ig/TCR gene rearrangements are complementary but infrequent targets for PCR-based detection of minimal residual disease in acute myeloid leukemia. Leukemia 2002, 16:368–375.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kottaridis PD, Gale RE, Langabeer SE, et al.: Studies of FLT3 mutations in paired presentation and relapse samples from patients with acute myeloid leukemia: implications for the role of FLT3 mutations in leukemogenesis, minimal residual disease detection, and possible therapy with FLT3 inhibitors. Blood 2002, 100:2393–2398.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Farr C, Gill R, Katz F, et al.: Analysis of ras gene mutations in childhood myeloid leukaemia. Br J Haematol 1991, 77:323–327.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Brown P, McIntyre E, Rau R, et al.: The incidence and clinical significance of nucleophosmin mutations in childhood AML. Blood 2007, 110:979–985.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cilloni D, Renneville A, Hermitte F, et al.: Real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction detection of minimal residual disease by standardized WT1 assay to enhance risk stratification in acute myeloid leukemia: a European LeukemiaNet study. J Clin Oncol 2009, 27:5195–5201.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jacobsohn DA, Tse WT, Chaleff S, et al.: High WT1 gene expression before haematopoietic stem cell transplant in children with acute myeloid leukaemia predicts poor event-free survival. Br J Haematol 2009, 146:669–674.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Willasch AM, Gruhn B, Coliva T, et al.: Standardization of WT1 mRNA quantitation for minimal residual disease monitoring in childhood AML and implications of WT1 gene mutations: a European multicenter study. Leukemia 2009, 23:1472–1479.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sievers EL, Lange BJ, Alonzo TA, et al.: Immunophenotypic evidence of leukemia after induction therapy predicts relapse: results from a prospective Children’s Cancer Group study of 252 acute myeloid leukemia patients. Blood 2003, 101:3398–3406.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Langebrake C, Creutzig U, Dworzak M, et al.: Residual disease monitoring in childhood acute myeloid leukemia by multiparameter flow cytometry: the MRD-AML-BFM Study Group. J Clin Oncol 2006, 24:3686–3692.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rosenberg AR, Leisenring W, Sanders JE, et al.: Sub-morphologic evidence of disease prior to stem cell transplantation correlates with inferior post transplant outcome in childhood acute myeloid leukemia [abstract]. Blood (ASH Annual Meeting Abstracts) 2009, 114:328.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gabert J, Beillard E, van der Velden V, et al.: Standardization and quality control studies of ‘real-time’ quantitative reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction of fusion gene transcripts for residual disease detection in leukemia—a Europe Against Cancer program. Leukemia 2003, 17:2318–2357.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Viehmann S, Teigler-Schlegel A, Bruch J, et al.: Monitoring of minimal residual disease (MRD) by real-time quantitative reverse transcription PCR (RQ-RT-PCR) in childhood acute myeloid leukemia with AML1/ETO rearrangement. Leukemia 2003, 17:1130–1136.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Perea G, Lasa A, Aventin A, et al.: Prognostic value of minimal residual disease (MRD) in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) with favorable cytogenetics [t(8;21) and inv(16)]. Leukemia 2006, 20:87–94.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Coustan-Smith E, Sancho J, Behm FG, et al.: Prognostic importance of measuring early clearance of leukemic cells by flow cytometry in childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Blood 2002, 100:52–58.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    van der Velden V, Cazzaniga G, Schrauder A, et al.: Analysis of minimal residual disease by Ig/TCR gene rearrangements: guidelines for interpretation of real-time quantitative PCR data. Leukemia 2007, 21:604–611.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Flohr T, Schrauder A, Cazzaniga G, et al.: Minimal residual disease-directed risk stratification using real-time quantitative PCR analysis of immunoglobulin and T-cell receptor gene rearrangements in the international multicenter trial AIEOP-BFM ALL 2000 for childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Leukemia 2008, 22:771–782.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Neale GA, Coustan-Smith E, Stow P, et al.: Comparative analysis of flow cytometry and polymerase chain reaction for the detection of minimal residual disease in childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Leukemia 2004, 18:934–938.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kerst G, Kreyenberg H, Roth C, et al.: Concurrent detection of minimal residual disease (MRD) in childhood acute lymphoblastic leukaemia by flow cytometry and real-time PCR. Br J Haematol 2005, 128:774–782.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ryan J, Quinn F, Meunier A, et al.: Minimal residual disease detection in childhood acute lymphoblastic leukaemia patients at multiple time-points reveals high levels of concordance between molecular and immunophenotypic approaches. Br J Haematol 2009, 144:107–115.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Coustan-Smith E, Behm FG, Sanchez J, et al.: Immunological detection of minimal residual disease in children with acute lymphoblastic leukaemia. Lancet 1998,351:550–554.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Coustan-Smith E, Sancho J, Hancock ML, et al.: Clinical importance of minimal residual disease in childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Blood 2000, 96:2691–2696.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Dworzak MN, Froschl G, Printz D, et al.: Prognostic significance and modalities of flow cytometric minimal residual disease detection in childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Blood 2002, 99:1952–1958.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Borowitz MJ, Devidas M, Hunger SP, et al.: Clinical significance of minimal residual disease in childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia and its relationship to other prognostic factors. a Children’s Oncology Group study. Blood 2008, 111:5477–5485.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    • Basso G, Veltroni M, Valsecchi MG, et al.: Risk of relapse of childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia is predicted by flow cytometric measurement of residual disease on day 15 bone marrow. J Clin Oncol 2009, 27:5168–5174. This large study comfirms the prognostic significance of detecting MRD during remission induction therapy by flow cytometry.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Brisco MJ, Condon J, Hughes E, et al.: Outcome prediction in childhood acute lymphoblastic leukaemia by molecular quantification of residual disease at the end of induction. Lancet 1994, 343:196–200.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Cave H, van der Werff ten Bosch J, Suciu S, et al.: Clinical significance of minimal residual disease in childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer—Childhood Leukemia Cooperative Group. N Engl J Med 1998, 339:591–598.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    van Dongen JJ, Seriu T, Panzer-Grumayer ER, et al.: Prognostic value of minimal residual disease in acute lymphoblastic leukaemia in childhood. Lancet 1998, 352:1731–1738.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    • Conter V, Bartram CR, Valsecchi MG, et al.: Molecular response to treatment redefines all prognostic factors in children and adolescents with B-cell precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia: results in 3184 patients of the AIEOP-BFM ALL 2000 study. Blood 2010 Feb 12 (Epub ahead of print). This large study confirms the clinical importance of MRD detected by PCR amplification of IG and TCR genes in childhood ALL.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Zhou J, Goldwasser MA, Li A, et al.: Quantitative analysis of minimal residual disease predicts relapse in children with B-lineage acute lymphoblastic leukemia in DFCI ALL Consortium Protocol 95-01. Blood 2007, 110:1607–1611.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Stow P, Key L, Cjen X, et al.: Clinical significance of low levels of minimal residual disease at the end of remission induction therapy in childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Blood 2010 March 19 (Epub ahead of print).Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Biondi A, Valsecchi MG, Seriu T, et al.: Molecular detection of minimal residual disease is a strong predictive factor of relapse in childhood B-lineage acute lymphoblastic leukemia with medium risk features. A case control study of the International BFM study group. Leukemia 2000, 14:1939–1943.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Attarbaschi A, Mann G, Panzer-Grumayer R, et al.: Minimal residual disease values discriminate between low and high relapse risk in children with B-cell precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia and an intrachromosomal amplification of chromosome 21: the Austrian and German acute lymphoblastic leukemia Berlin-Frankfurt-Munster (ALL-BFM) trials. J Clin Oncol 2008, 26:3046–3050.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    van der Velden V, Corral L, Valsecchi MG, et al.: Prognostic significance of minimal residual disease in infants with acute lymphoblastic leukemia treated within the Interfant-99 protocol. Leukemia 2009, 23:1073–1079.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Eckert C, Biondi A, Seeger K, et al.: Prognostic value of minimal residual disease in relapsed childhood acute lymphoblastic leukaemia. Lancet 2001, 358:1239–1241.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Coustan-Smith E, Gajjar A, Hijiha N, et al.: Clinical significance of minimal residual disease in childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia after first relapse. Leukemia 2004, 18:499–504.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Paganin M, Zecca M, Fabbri G, et al.: Minimal residual disease is an important predictive factor of outcome in children with relapsed 'high-risk' acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Leukemia 2008, 22:2193–2200.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Raetz EA, Borowitz MJ, Devidas M, et al.: Reinduction platform for children with first marrow relapse of acute lymphoblastic leukemia: a Children's Oncology Group study [corrected]. J Clin Oncol 2008, 26(24):3971–3978.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Hagedorn N, Acquaviva C, Fronkova E, et al.: Submicroscopic bone marrow involvement in isolated extramedullary relapses in childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia: a more precise definition of “isolated” and its possible clinical implications, a collaborative study of the Resistant Disease Committee of the International BFM Study Group. Blood 2007, 110:4022–4029.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Bader P, Kreyenberg H, Henze GH, et al.: Prognostic value of minimal residual disease quantification before allogeneic stem-cell transplantation in relapsed childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia: the ALL-REZ BFM Study Group. J Clin Oncol 2009, 27:377–384.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    • Pui CH, Campana D, Pei D, et al.: Treating childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia without cranial irradiation. N Engl J Med 2009, 360:2730–2741. This was the first published study to use MRD for risk stratification in newly diagnosed childhood ALL.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Coustan-Smith E, Sancho J, Hancock ML, et al.: Use of peripheral blood instead of bone marrow to monitor residual disease in children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Blood 2002, 100:2399–2402.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    van der Velden V, Jacobs DC, Wijkhuijs AJ, et al.: Minimal residual disease levels in bone marrow and peripheral blood are comparable in children with T cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), but not in precursor-B-ALL. Leukemia 2002, 16:1432–1436.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Panzer-Grumayer ER, Schneider M, Panzer S, et al.: Rapid molecular response during early induction chemotherapy predicts a good outcome in childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Blood 2000, 95:790–794.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Coustan-Smith E, Ribeiro RC, Stow P, et al.: A simplified flow cytometric assay identifies children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia who have a superior clinical outcome. Blood 2006, 108:97–102.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Campana D: Molecular determinants of treatment response in acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Hematology Am Soc Hematol Educ Program 2008, 2008:366–373.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Mullighan CG, Su X, Zhang J, et al.: Deletion of IKZF1 and prognosis in acute lymphoblastic leukemia. N Engl J Med 2009, 360:470–480.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Coustan-Smith E, Mullighan CG, Onciu M, et al.: Early T-cell precursor leukaemia: a subtype of very high-risk acute lymphoblastic leukaemia. Lancet Oncol 2009,10:147–156.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Cario G, Stanulla M, Fine BM, et al.: Distinct gene expression profiles determine molecular treatment response in childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Blood 2005,105:821–826.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Flotho C, Coustan-Smith E, Pei D, et al.: Genes contributing to minimal residual disease in childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia: prognostic significance of CASP8AP2. Blood 2006, 108:1050–1057.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Flotho C, Coustan-Smith E, Pei D, et al.: A set of genes that regulate cell proliferation predicts treatment outcome in childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Blood 2007, 110:1271–1277.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Yang JJ, Cheng C, Yang W, et al.: Genome-wide interrogation of germline genetic variation associated with treatment response in childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia. JAMA 2009, 301:393–403.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of OncologySt. Jude Children’s Research HospitalMemphisUSA

Personalised recommendations