
==== Front
Blood Adv
Blood Adv
Blood Advances
2473-9529
2473-9537
The American Society of Hematology

S2473-9529(24)00310-0
10.1182/bloodadvances.2024013318
Inside Blood Advances
Second chances for secondary AML
Appelbaum Jacob S. 12
Appelbaum Frederick R. 12
Percival Mary-Elizabeth 12
1 Division of Hematology/Oncology, Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA
2 Clinical Research Division, Fred Hutch Cancer Center, Seattle, WA
13 8 2024
13 8 2024
13 8 2024
8 15 42214222
© 2024 by The American Society of Hematology. Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), permitting only noncommercial, nonderivative use with attribution. All other rights reserved.
2024
The American Society of Hematology
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
==== Body
pmcIn this issue of Blood Advances, Nagler et al1 report that outcomes are similar for patients with secondary acute myeloid leukemia (sAML) compared with those with de novo AML following transplantation for active disease using haplo-identical donors and posttransplant cyclophosphamide. Specifically, in a large European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation registry study of 719 patients with primary induction failure (PIF) or relapsed disease, ∼30% were alive and disease-free 2 years after transplantation with no discernable difference between those with de novo AML or sAML. These results are somewhat surprising given the generally acknowledged worse prognosis with sAML after standard chemotherapy or transplant in first remission using matched related or matched unrelated donors.

Does this mean that patients with PIF or recurrent sAML should be considered for transplantation? The answer is a tentative “yes.” In general, the outcomes with nontransplant salvage therapy for both of these groups are very poor. Among patients refractory to high dose cytarabine regimens, a 20% response to salvage therapy has been observed, with <10% surviving without transplant.2,3 Intensification of salvage chemotherapy does not seem to improve outcomes4; survival after standard salvage therapies such as mitoxantrone, etoposide, and cytarabine (MEC; 5.4 months5) or fludarabine, cytarabine, and granulocyte colony stimulating factor (FLAG; 3.4 months6) are similar to the survival durations of ∼4 months observed after use of venetoclax in combination with low dose cytarabine or hypomethylating agents by the Programa Español de Tratamientos en Hematología group.7 In patients who did not undergo transplant, survival of 6 months was observed after venetoclax in combination with FLAG-Idarubicin.8 Although transplantation is associated with considerable morbidity and mortality, a leukemia-free survival probability of 30% at 2 years, as described by Nagler et al, makes transplantation a reasonable option to consider and discuss with patients.

Admittedly, in this retrospective registry study, there is no way to know how restrictive centers were in selecting patients for transplant. It would have been helpful if the authors had provided a more precise definition of PIF, specifically to make clear whether the definition included patients whose only induction attempt was a brief exposure to hypomethylating agents or other low-intensity regimens. In this study, the average age was 61 years, 50% had a performance status of <90, and 40% had an HCT comorbidity index score of ≥3, so it does seem likely these results should be reasonably generalizable.

When considering transplant candidates, their individual characteristics inform risk/benefit judgments. Nagler et al help us by demonstrating that the usual factors (age, performance status, cytomegalovirus status, and cytogenetics) help predict outcome. Surprisingly, a multivariate analysis for survival, relapse, nonrelapse mortality (NRM), and composite end points found no other baseline covariates predictive of outcomes. In particular, neither the use of reduced intensity (vs myeloablative conditioning) nor disease status (primary refractory vs first relapse), nor HCT comorbidity index ≥3 was associated with any outcome measure. Although some centers would decline to consider HCT for patients with sAML and active disease, these data indicate a strong rationale to consider allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant for the difficult-to-treat population of patients with AML (both de novo and sAML) with active disease.

Nagler et al’s present report, focused on haplo-identical donors and posttransplant cyclophosphamide, raises questions about best management of such patients moving forward if matched donors are available. Should haplo-identical donors become the first choice in this setting? Randomized prospective comparative data are not available, but outcomes using matched sibling and haplo-identical donors appear similar among older adults who received transplantation for disease in remission.9 However, haplo-identical family members offer the possibility of quicker donor acquisition and potentially improved graft-versus-leukemia (GVL) effect than unrelated donors. Turning to haplo-identical family members when a matched sibling is not available seems reasonable.

An additional question is whether patients with PIF or relapsed AML benefit from efforts at remission reinduction before HCT. This is a question that has existed for decades.10,11 Consistent with results from 40 years ago, 2 more recent studies suggest blast reduction before initiating the transplant regimen is unlikely to be beneficial. First, retrospective analyses found similar posttransplant outcomes among patients with morphologic vs measurable residual disease at the time of transplant.12 Second, in a recently published study, patients with AML with PIF or untreated first relapse were randomized to either an attempt at reinduction or immediate transplant. Overall survival 4 years after randomization was similar: 49% in the reinduction cohort vs 46% for those going immediately to transplant. Patients in the immediate transplant group were all treated using a regimen of combination chemotherapy (fludarabine, amsacrine, cytarabine), followed within a week with reduced intensity alkylator-based conditioning,13 so perhaps the question is more one of timing rather than the actual treatment received.

Despite the potential for cure, transplantation for patients with PIF or recurrent AML, particularly those with sAML, is not widely applied. Timely identification of a suitable donor can be challenging, and simultaneous attempts to “debulk” refractory leukemia before initiating the transplant procedure may impair patient fitness, while adding to financial and logistical challenges. Therefore, data from Nagler et al’s study supporting the use of haplo-identical donors in patients with sAML with active disease are particularly welcome and may encourage physicians and motivated patients to reach for a treatment option that provides a substantial chance for long-term survival.

These data once again emphasize the impressive power of the GVL effect and its distinct activity from cytotoxic chemotherapy. Further progress may be made both by reevaluating which patients are likely to benefit from transplant and improving the balance of GVL vs graft-versus-host disease. Multimodal evaluation of patient fitness (eg, by the Composite Health Risk Model14) may better identify patients at low risk of NRM, but molecular AML features that sensitize leukemic stem cells to GVL remain an area of active research. Novel cell type manipulation (such as naïve T-cell depletion15) or immune augmentation (such as application of decoy-resistant-IL-1816) holds promise. Patients and physicians may be ready to throw in the towel when AML is not chemotherapy-sensitive, but Nagler et al show that haplo-identical transplant can be a viable salvage. In life, as in sports, when you are given a second chance, put in your best player.

Conflict-of-interest disclosure: The authors declare no competing financial interests.
==== Refs
References

1 Nagler A Labopin M Tischer J Haploidentical transplantation in primary refractory/relapsed secondary versus de novo AML: from the ALWP/EBMT Blood Adv 8 15 2024 4223 4233 38598754
2 Ravandi F Cortes J Faderl S Characteristics and outcome of patients with acute myeloid leukemia refractory to 1 cycle of high-dose cytarabine-based induction chemotherapy Blood 116 26 2010 5818 6153 20923968
3 Othus M Appelbaum FR Petersdorf SH Fate of patients with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia who fail primary induction therapy Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 21 3 2015 559 564 25536215
4 Roboz GJ Rosenblat T Arellano M International randomized phase III study of elacytarabine versus investigator choice in patients with relapsed/refractory acute myeloid leukemia J Clin Oncol 32 18 2014 1919 1926 24841975
5 Greenberg PL Lee SJ Advani R Mitoxantrone, etoposide, and cytarabine with or without valspodar in patients with relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia and high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome: a phase III trial (E2995) J Clin Oncol 22 6 2004 1078 1086 15020609
6 Becker PS Kantarjian HM Appelbaum FR Retrospective comparison of clofarabine versus fludarabine in combination with high-dose cytarabine with or without granulocyte colony-stimulating factor as salvage therapies for acute myeloid leukemia Haematologica 98 1 2013 114 118 22801963
7 Labrador J Saiz-Rodríguez M de Miguel D Use of venetoclax in patients with relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia: the PETHEMA Registry Experience Cancers (Basel) 14 7 2022 1734 35406512
8 DiNardo CD Lachowiez CA Takahashi K Venetoclax combined with FLAG-IDA induction and consolidation in newly diagnosed and relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia J Clin Oncol 39 25 2021 2768 2778 34043428
9 Rashidi A Hamadani M Zhang MJ Outcomes of haploidentical vs matched sibling transplantation for acute myeloid leukemia in first complete remission Blood Adv 3 12 2019 1826 1836 31201170
10 Appelbaum F Clift RA Buckner CD Allogeneic marrow transplantation for acute nonlymphoblastic leukemia after first relapse Blood 61 5 1983 949 953 6338977
11 Clift RA Buckner CD Appelbaum FR Allogeneic marrow transplantation during untreated first relapse of acute myeloid leukemia J Clin Oncol 10 11 1992 1723 1729 1403055
12 Araki D Wood BL Othus M Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation for acute myeloid leukemia: time to move toward a minimal residual disease–based definition of complete remission? J Clin Oncol 34 4 2016 329 336 26668349
13 Stelljes M Middeke JM Bug G Remission induction versus immediate allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplantation for patients with relapsed or poor responsive acute myeloid leukaemia (ASAP): a randomised, open-label, phase 3, non-inferiority trial Lancet Haematol 11 5 2024 e324 e335 38583455
14 Artz A Logan BR Saber W The Composite Health Risk Assessment Model (CHARM) to predict 1-year non-relapse mortality (NRM) among older recipients of allogeneic transplantation: a Prospective BMT-CTN Study 1704 Blood 142 suppl 1 2023 109
15 Bleakley M Sehgal A Seropian S Naive T-cell depletion to prevent chronic graft-versus-host disease J Clin Oncol 40 11 2022 1174 1185 35007144
16 Zhou T Damsky W Weizman OE IL-18BP is a secreted immune checkpoint and barrier to IL-18 immunotherapy Nature 583 7817 2020 609 614 32581358
