343P Outcomes of good risk AML from a tertiary cancer centre: Is good always good?

Abstract

Background Good risk AML is defined cytogenetically by the presence of good risk cytogenetics which include t(8;21), in v 16,t(16;16) and is characterized by a significantly better outcome following standard induction chemotherapy followed by consolidation with high dose cytarabine. Many studies have shown that the outcome of good risk AML can range from 60% to 80% depending on the series . There is heterogeneity in the outcomes. Later on, it was realized that molecular markers including NPM1 and FLT3 play an important role in modifying the outcome. Although we have surplus of data on the outcome of good risk AML from the west, there is paucity of data from Indian subcontinent. Here we present the outcomes of good risk AML treated in our tertiary care cancer centre. Methods: all patients with good risk AML betweeen 17 to 65 yrs were analysed Good risk AML was defined as presence of t(8;21), inv 16, t(16;16). All our patient are treated with standard 3+7 induction regimen that comprises of daunorubicin 60mg/m2 days 1-3 and cytarabine 100mg/m2 over 24 hours on days 1-7. Consolidation was given with high dose cytarabine, doses ranging from 9 to 12gm/m2 in six divided doses on days 1, 3 and 5. Results: total 87 patients were analysed. Males comprised of 49 patients . Baseline t(8;21) positive in 94% and inv 16 present in 6% cases. Morphological complete remission was documented in 90% of patients. A total of 38 patients were evaluated from cytogenetic status after induction, of which 24 patients achieved a complete cytogenetic remission (63.3%). There were a total of 11 (12.5%) deaths during induction, all of which were due to febrile neutropenia.A total of 51 patients (59.34%) were alive till the time of analysis. The median follow period was 29. The 3 yrs relapse free survival was 72.1% and 3 yr overall survival was 56.7% Conclusions Our study shows that the survival of good risk AML is not always as expected. The heterogeneity was probably due to differences in the molecular characteristics, with both known and unknown markers till date. Legal entity responsible for the study: N/A Funding N/A Disclosure All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.