Analysis of the clinical characteristics of acute myeloid leukemia related to the treatment of hematological and solid tumors

Abstract

Objective: To compare and analyze the clinical characteristics of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) related to the treatment of hematological tumors and solid tumors. Methods: The laboratory and clinical data of 41 patients with treatment-related AML (t-AML) in the Department of Hematology, Henan Cancer Hospital from January 2014 to December 2021 were retrospectively analyzed, and they were divided into hematological tumor group and solid tumor group. Survival analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method and Log rank test. Results: The median interval from the first tumor diagnosis to t-AML in 41 patients was 21.0 (16.5-46.0) months; 24 (58.5%) had abnormal expression of lymphoid antigen, 28 (68.3%) had abnormal karyotype, 18 cases (43.9%) were positive for fusion gene, and 28 cases (68.3%) were positive for gene mutation; the median recurrence-free survival (RFS) was 11.0 months, and the median overall survival (OS) was 11.5 months. The proportion of acute promyelocytic leukemia ([APL], 0.0, 0/13), complete response ([CR],18.2%, 2/11), median OS (4.5 months) and median RFS (2.5 months) of t-AML patients in the hematological tumor group were significantly lower than those in the solid tumor group (35.7%, 10/28; 68.0%, 17/25; not reach; not reach), but the proportion of M4 /M5 (93.2%,12/13) was significantly higher than that in the solid tumor group (53.6%,15/18; all P values<0.05). Through subgroup analysis, the proportion of patients with positive PML-RARa and good prognosis karyotypes in the solid tumor group (35.7%, 10/28; 46.4%, 13/28) was significantly higher than that in the hematological tumor group (0.0, 0/13; 0.0, 0/13; P<0.05), while the proportion of patients with intermediate karyotypes (42.9%, 12/28) was significantly lower than that in the hematological tumor group (84.6%, 11/13; P<0.05), the difference was statistically significant. The CR rate (90.0%, 9/10), median OS (not reach) and median RFS (not reach) in the t-APL group were higher than those in the t-AML (without t-APL) group (38.5%, 10/26; 6 months; 8 months; P<0.05). After excluding the effect of t-APL patients, there was no significant difference in the CR rate, median OS and median RFS between the solid tumor group (8; 9 months; not reach) and the hematological tumor group (2; 4 months; 2 months; P>0.05). Univariate analysis showed that the primary tumor belongs to hematological tumor was a common risk factor for OS and RFS in t-AML patients (P<0.10). Conclusions: Compared with patients with t-AML secondary to solid tumors, patients with t-AML secondary to hematological tumors have poorer treatment effects and poorer prognosis. After excluding the effect of t-APL patients, there are no significant differences in the treatment efficacy and prognosis between the two types of t-AML patients.