Clinical outcome of therapy-related acute myeloid leukemia patients. Real-life experience in a University Hospital and a Cancer Center in France.

INTRODUCTION

Therapy‐related myeloid neoplasms (t‐MNs) including therapy‐related acute myeloid leukemias (t‐AML) and therapy‐related myelodysplastic syndromes (t‐MDS) are considered as a distinct category in the 2016 revised World Health Organization (WHO) classification. 1 This entity is characterized by myeloid neoplasms emerging after treatment for a primary malignancy and associated with a poor prognosis. 2 , 3 Among newly diagnosed AML and MDS cases, 10% and 20% are therapy‐related and are generally considered as an independent adverse prognostic factor. 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 Therapy‐related AML have been thought to be the direct consequence of mutational events induced by cytotoxic therapy and/or targeted therapy, probably promoted by pre‐existing conditions such as clonal hematopoiesis. 6 , 7 , 8 The most common subtype occurs 5–7 years after first exposure to alkylating agents or radiation, is often preceded by MDS, and frequently accompanied by chromosomes 5 and/or 7 abnormalities, complex karyotype, and TP53 mutations. 9 , 10 Otherwise, t‐AML after topoisomerase II inhibitors occurs 1–3 years after first exposure, rarely preceded by MDS and usually associated with multiple gene rearrangements. 11 , 12 Results comparing t‐AML/MDS and de novo AML/MDS, have been conflicting so far. 13 Because of similarity regarding cytogenetic features of de novo MN and t‐MN, patients have been treated for a long time in the same way. 14 Nowadays, according to knowledge of molecular markers and innovative therapies, new strategies were proposed regarding de novo and t‐MN.

Because over time, the incidence of t‐MN is increasing as more patients survive their primary cancers, a better description of the biologic and prognostic factors associated with this entity is highly warranted. 15 , 16 Survival of patients with t‐AML remains poor and some retrospective studies have identified many factors that contribute to poor clinical outcomes. 17 , 18 In this subset of patients, there is no clear guidelines regarding frontline treatment strategies which are usually based on IC 13 or non‐IC as hypomethylating agents (HMA) associated to Bcl2 inhibitors 19 and allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (Allo‐HCT). 20 , 21 Therapy‐related AML patients have often been excluded from frontline clinical trials until availability of liposomal daunorubicin and cytarabine association (Vyxeos®) which demonstrated encouraging results for this subset of patients. 22

The aim of this retrospective study is to describe general characteristics and treatment modalities of primary malignancies of 112 consecutive t‐AML patients, from two French centers (one University Hospital and one Cancer Center), who received chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy for previous neoplastic and non‐neoplastic diseases and to analyze their clinical outcomes according to treatment modalities and prognostic factors.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

General and biological characteristics of patients

Between 01/01/2006 and 01/06/2019, we analyzed retrospectively, in two French centers, 112 adult patients diagnosed with t‐AML according to 2016 revised WHO criteria 1 and occurring after treatment of solid tumors (ST), hematologic malignancies (HM), or autoimmune diseases (AID). At leukemia diagnosis, we performed peripheral blood count and bone marrow morphology with blast percentage. Samples of bone marrow and blood were also examined for cytogenetic abnormalities. Cytogenetic and molecular risk profiles were recorded according to 2010 European Leukemia Net (ELN) classification. 23 Next generation sequencing (NGS) 24 was not available in our two centers until 2016 and was done subsequently for only 13 patients which explained that 2017 and 2022 ELN risk stratifications 25 , 26 by genetics were not used in our study. Mixed‐lineage leukemia (MLL) gene fusion and MECOM1 positivity were detected by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH). Since 2006, available leukemia samples were analyzed for mutations in the FLT3 protein domains (TKD and ITD), NPM1, IDH1/2, and Evi1 overexpression, using real‐time quantitative reverse transcriptase‐polymerase chain reaction (RT‐PCR). 27

Treatment of previous malignancies and t‐AML

Patients received chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy as treatment for their primary malignancy and for some of them, high dose chemotherapy followed by autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (Auto‐HCT). All patients eligible for IC were treated by an anthracycline and cytarabine‐based induction chemotherapy regimen ( N = 55 including CPX‐351 in seven patients). Patients achieving complete remission (CR) after one or two courses of induction received consolidation chemotherapy. Patients unfit for intensive chemotherapy received frontline non‐IC: nine low dose cytarabine (LDC) and 24 hypomethylating agents (HMA). All HMA patients received azacytidine. Policy regarding transfusions, antibiotics, and antifungal prophylaxis were determined according to established local practice. Twenty‐four patients received best supportive care (BSC) with for some patient's administration of hydroxyurea or 6‐mercaptopurine.

Therapy‐related AML response criteria

CR was defined according to 2017 ELN criteria. 25 Patients in partial response or failure after treatment were considered as nonresponders. Measurable residual disease (MRD) response by flow cytometry (FCM) or RT‐qPCR, when possible, has not been included in this study.

Statistical analysis

We performed a global descriptive analysis of the baseline characteristics of the cohort and a specific analysis of each treatment group. Continuous variables were summarized as median (min; max) and [interquartile range] and compared between groups with a Kruskal–Wallis test. Qualitative variables were synthetized as counts and percentages and compared between groups by a Pearson's chi‐square test (with Monte Carlo simulations if one count is below 5).

Overall survival (OS) was defined as the time from diagnosis to death at last follow‐up and disease‐free survival (DFS) as the time since diagnosis to death or relapse date. Patients with no events or allografted before whichever event were censored. Survival curves were illustrated with the Kaplan–Meier method and compared with a log‐rank test. Univariate and multivariate analyses on survival were done using Cox regression. Relapse was illustrated thanks to the cumulative incidence (CI) function. Univariate and multivariate analyses on CI of relapse was done using the Fine and Gray regression.

The bilateral level of significance was set at 5%. All the statistical analyses and graphics were made under the R program (v3.5.1) and its “survival,” “cmprsk,” and “ggplot2” packages.

A pair‐matched control analysis of t‐AML patients treated by IC with de novo AML also treated by IC was matched for age, cytogenetic features, and 2010 ELN classification.

RESULTS

Patient characteristics

Among 112 patients included in the study, 56 were males (50%) with a median age of 68 years (19–87) at diagnosis of t‐AML. Before t‐AML, 108 patients presented a first cancer: 73 patients ST (64.5%), 35 HM (30.5%) from whom six patients (5.4%) developed a second cancer (four in ST and two in HM). Four patients presented AID (3.6%). Forty‐six patients (41%) received chemotherapy for their primary disease (alkylating agents, topoisomerase II inhibitors alone or in combination or other agents), 17 (15%) radiotherapy and 49 (44%) radiochemotherapy. Seventeen patients (15%) underwent Auto‐HCT after high dose chemotherapy (two ST and 15 HM). All t‐AML after AID were treated by long‐term methotrexate. Median interval from treatment of previous ST, HM, and AID to t‐AML diagnosis was 5.3 years (0.4–34.3) (Table 1 ).

Therapy‐related AML after AID had similar characteristics to ST and HM populations in terms of delay of t‐AML occurrence, demographic and genetics features, response to therapy and outcome. At t‐AML diagnosis, cytogenetics was unfavorable in 44 patients (42%) with 28 (64%) complex karyotypes and 16 no complex karyotypes (three patients with 5q deletion, five with monosomy 7, three with 7q deletion, two with both chromosome abnormalities, and three patients with other abnormalities). Nine patients presented chromosome 17 abnormalities (two deletions and seven monosomies) and all belonged to complex karyotypes. Considering t‐AML karyotype, among intermediate risk patients, 70% were observed after ST, 17% after HM, and 13% after AID. In unfavorable risk patients, 59% were observed after ST and 41% after HM. ( p = 0.03).

Regarding molecular alterations, FLT3‐ITD , FLT3‐TKD , NPM1 , and IDH mutations were observed in 6.9%, 2.3%, 11.5%, and 2.3% of patients, respectively. MECOM1 was overexpressed in 25% (22/88) of cases. MECOM1 overexpression was associated with 11q23 and chromosome 3 rearrangements in 9/22 (40.9%) and 3/22 (13.6%) patients, respectively. According to 2010 ELN classification, 11%, 45%, and 44% of patients were favorable, intermediate (1 and 2), and unfavorable, respectively. NGS was available for only 13 patients. Median number of mutations was 2 (1–5). Patients with complex karyotype had lower mutation burden (median: 1.9 [1–3]) than patients with noncomplex karyotype (median: 3.2 [1–5]; p = 0.17) (Figure S1A ). TP53 mutation was highly enriched (6/13) in this t‐AML population including three patients carrying chromosome 17 abnormalities (one patient with complex karyotype and two patients with intermediate karyotype). Co‐occurring mutations were summarized in Figure S1B . In TP53 mutated patients, there was a strong co‐occurrence with RTK pathway mutations, especially RAS pathway (Figure S1A ). Overall, 55 (49%) and 33 (29.5%) received IC and non‐IC [24 (21.5%) HMA and 9 (8%) LDC], respectively. Twenty‐four patients (21.5%) were not treated and therefore received BSC. Among treated patients ( n = 88) (IC + non‐IC), 43 patients (49%) achieved CR: four out of 33 (12%) in non‐IC patients (three in HMA and one in LDC) and 39 out of 55 (71%) in IC patients. Fifteen patients (17%) underwent Allo‐HCT with a median interval between AML diagnosis and Allo‐HCT of 4.7 months (2.6–17.5) (Table 1 ).

When we considered treated patients IC + Non‐IC ( n = 88), we observed differences concerning age ( p < 0.001), 2010 ELN classification with more favorable, intermediate‐1 and intermediate‐2 and less unfavorable in IC group ( p = 0.04), number of previous cancer ( p = 0.06), and bone marrow blast percentage ( p = 0.08) (Table 2 ).

Clinical outcome

With a median follow‐up of 5.5 months (0–144), the median OS for the whole population and DFS for the treated population were 9 months (5.9–13.5) and 6.3 months (5.3–10.3), respectively (Figure 1A,B ). There was a significant difference between the three groups (entire population: BSC vs. non‐IC vs. IC) in terms of OS ( p < 0.001) as well as between IC (median of 14.8 months) and non‐IC (median of 11 months) groups ( p = 0.02) (Figure 1C ). There was no difference between IC (median of 10.3 months) and non‐IC (median of 8 months) groups in terms of DFS (Figure 1D ). Univariate analysis showed a significant impact of the act of receiving chemotherapy, high WBC and high blast counts, unfavorable karyotype, and 2010 ELN (Table 3 ). Overall survival ( p = 0.035) and DFS ( p = 0.326) according to 2010 ELN classification were shown in Figure 2B .

In the 88 treated patients with either IC or non‐IC, 43 achieved CR [39 out of 55 (71%) and four out of 33 (12%) in IC and non‐IC group, respectively]. Among these 43 patients, 13 are alive at the last follow‐up (nine in CR and four in relapse) and 30 died [16 from relapse (53%) and 14 from nonrelapse causes]. Among the remaining 45 patients who did not achieve CR, 41 patients (91%) died from disease and four patients were lost of follow‐up. In the treated population, with a median follow‐up of 8.2 months (0.3–144), the median OS and DFS were 13.5 months (10.3–19.6) and 8.2 months (7–13.7), respectively. When we considered only patients receiving IC, the median OS was 14.8 months (11–32.6) and median DFS was 9.9 months (6.6–15.8). The cumulative incidence (CI) of relapse in treated population was 17.5% (9–26), 24.7% (14.8–34.5), and 26.4% (16–36.6) at 12, 36, and 60 months, respectively (Figure 3 ).

In multivariate analysis of the entire cohort (Table 3A ), we observed a significant negative impact of WBC count >4 Giga/L on OS ( p = 0.02) and a significant positive impact of the act of receiving chemotherapy on OS ( p < 0.001).

In multivariate analysis including only treated patients (Table 3B ), previous Auto‐HCT had a significant negative impact on OS ( p = 0.028) and DFS ( p = 0.045), WBC count >4 G/L had a significant negative impact on OS ( p = 0.03) and DFS ( p < 0.001) and type of chemotherapy (IC vs. non‐IC) had a significant negative impact on OS ( p = 0.026). In order to have an unbiased estimate of the effect of chemotherapy intensity, we performed univariate and multivariate analyses on OS concerning only confounding variables (age, number of previous cancers, marrow blast count, and 2010 ELN classification). We observed a persistent significant impact of chemotherapy intensity in univariate which disappeared in multivariate analysis (Table S1 ).

Results of pair‐matched analysis

In order to compare clinical outcome of de novo AML ( n = 117) and t‐AML ( n = 55) treated by IC, we performed a pair‐matched analysis. Characteristics of the two matched cohorts were not significantly different although a difference of age between the two cohorts was observed but which did not reach a significant level (Table S2 ). Median OS was 16.5 months (12.7–24.9) and 14.8 months (11–32.6) in de novo and t‐AML, respectively ( p = 0.345). Median DFS was 9.45 months (6.8–13.7) and 9.9 months (6.6–15.8) for de novo and t‐AML, respectively ( p = 0.708) (Figure 4 ,B). In addition, there was no difference concerning 2010 ELN classification between t‐AML and de novo AML when we analyzed the different prognostic groups (Figure S2 ). CI of relapse were 47.6% (36.7–58) and 33% (19.5–46.8) at 2 years and 51% (40–62.3) and 38.5% (24–53) at 5 years for de novo and t‐AML patients, respectively, with a lower CI of relapse for t‐AML (Figure 5 ).

Allogeneic HCT results

According to international recommendations for HCT in AML patients, 28 15 patients [five males and 10 females with a median age of 53 years (21–65)] underwent Allo‐HCT in first CR. Before transplantation, 14 patients have received IC, one patient HMA and no patient received CPX‐351. As conditioning regimen, patients received either myeloablative (MAC) ( n = 2) or reduced intensity conditioning (RIC) ( n = 13) including antithymocyte globulins (ATG) in nine patients. Hematopoietic cell sources were two bone marrow, one cord blood unit, and 11 peripheral hematopoietic cells, from six geno‐identical donors, four unrelated HLA matched donors, and four unrelated HLA mismatched donors. After transplantation, two patients presented a graft failure and among 13 evaluable patients, 12 achieved a full donor chimerism and one a mixed chimerism. Six out of 13 patients developed acute graft‐versus‐host disease (GVHD) (one grade I, three grade II, and two grade III) and six developed a chronic GVHD (one extensive and five limited). The best response after transplantation was CR in 10 patients. At the last follow‐up, four patients are alive (three in CR and one in relapse) and 11 died (five from relapse, five from transplant related mortality causes, and one from another subsequent malignancy).

DISCUSSION

In our study and as described in several studies, 17 , 18 , 29 50%–60% of patients had a ST as primary malignancy with a majority of breast cancer and 30%–40% HM with a majority of lymphoproliferative diseases before occurrence of t‐AML. All patients, as in our analyzed population, received chemotherapy combinations with alkylating agents, topoisomerase II inhibitors, platinum compounds, and/or radiotherapy with variable median interval between primary malignancy and t‐AML 15 , 17 , 29 , 30 Recent study from AML Swedish registry have showed, among patients treated for ST, lymphoma, and multiple myeloma (MM), 4.5% yearly overtime increase of incidence of t‐AML. 31 Therapy‐related MN after HM other than lymphoma and MM treated by chemotherapy followed or not by auto‐HCT were less studied. 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 Singh et al have evaluated risk of t‐MN in a very large series of ST and MM patients during three periods of time (from 2000 to 2016), except in melanoma, authors observed in the most recent period, an increase rate of t‐MDS and decrease rate of t‐AML probably due to introduction of nonchemotherapy innovative agents. 37 A study of t‐MN after radiotherapy alone done by Patel et al has shown that the most common cytogenetic abnormality was a clonal abnormality in chromosome 5 and/or 7 with a worse outcome compared with other cytogenetic groups. 38 Concerning t‐MN after innovative agents, patients treated for ST, with different peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT) 39 and more recently, with Poly (ADP‐ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors, developed also high risk t‐MN. 7 , 40 Several studies highlighted the role of genetic mutations which belong to CHIP, found at ST diagnosis, growing within malignancy history and exposure to risk factors with a proven impact on t‐MN development. 6 , 7 , 8 , 10 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 Concerning general characteristics and genetic features of t‐AML patients, as others, we reported more frequent abnormal karyotypes compared to de novo AML 2 , 15 , 17 , 18 , 45 , 46 and no difference in the incidence and distribution of mutated NPM1 and FLT3‐ITD between t‐AML and de novo AML. 47 TP53 mutations or 17p abnormalities are frequently observed in t‐MNs and associated with complex karyotype, a reduced probability of achieving response after induction chemotherapy and a poor outcome, as shown by Lindsley et al. 48 Nowadays, prognosis of TP53 mutated t‐AML, according to new AML classifications 26 must consider variant allelic frequency, single or multihit characteristic and presence of comutations. 49 Due to NGS nonavailability at the beginning of our study, we reported only few results of genomic assessment in 13 patients with 2 or more mutations and TP53 mutations in 46% co‐occurring, in half of them with chromosome 17 abnormalities. Concerning treatment of t‐AML, a study about 931 older patients with secondary AML using IC‐based regimens compared to epigenetic and low dose cytarabine regimens did not demonstrate a statistically significant difference in OS except for patients who underwent Allo‐HCT. 50 In our study, we observed positive impact of treatment with a better median OS than in Chen and Chicago group reports. 15 , 45 Nowadays, patients with t‐AML and AML‐MRC could receive CPX‐351 which allowed promising results 22 and specially for patients who underwent Allo‐HCT. In our study, patients receiving IC had a significant higher OS and DFS in univariate but not in multivariate analysis, compared to those treated by non‐IC after adjustment on confounding variables. Nevertheless, we have to mention that, at that period of time, patients in non‐IC group, have received only HMA. Actually, AML including t‐AML patients who are not eligible for IC are treated by combinations of HMA or cytarabine with Bcl2 inhibitors with or without targeted therapies (FLT3 inhibitors, IDH1 and 2 inhibitors, and anti‐CD47 antibody). 19 , 51 , 52 In addition, magrolimab and APR‐246 showed interesting results in TP53 mutant t‐MN. 51 , 53 In this real‐life study, we integrated BSC patients, frequent in this category of AML, who should be included in future AML studies.

In Allo‐HCT for t‐AML setting, a positive impact of CPX‐351 on OS and TRM was observed. 21 , 54 Considering Allo‐HCT, we showed in our study a usual GVHD incidence but a high balanced mortality rate related to either toxicity or relapse. A comparative study between sAML/t‐AML and de novo AML undergoing Allo‐HCT showed after adjustment for ELN risk and pre‐HCT MRD status that disease subtype did not impact outcome. 55

More recently, Baranwal et al had identified a very high‐risk score (TP53/BCOR/IDH1/ GATA2/BCORL1) for Allo‐HCT outcome with survival of 0% versus 64.6% ( p = 0.001). 56

Our results do not suggest t‐AML as an independent poor prognostic factor, because of the similarity of OS between t‐AML and de novo AML. This is related to a matching of IC‐treated patients on age, cytogenetics, and ELN2010 in the pair‐matched analysis of t‐AML and de novo AML. These results are similar to those obtained by Chen et al. who also performed a pair‐matched analysis between de novo AML and t‐AML after breast cancer.

This OS similarity is controversial in other studies as German–Austrian AMLSG registry study 18 and PETHEMA registry study 57 who did not perform a pair‐matched analysis between t‐AML and de novo AML and included all consecutive newly diagnosed AML. These two studies showed difference of characteristics between the two populations with older patients and more frequent abnormal cytogenetics in t‐AML than in de novo AML. The only similarities between all these studies is that t‐AML patients had less frequently NPM1 mutations and FLT3‐ITD. Due to pair‐matched analysis results observed, we maintain that t‐AML seem not an independent risk factor of poor outcome in younger patients who received IC.

Our study has some limitations related to its retrospective design, relatively small number of patients studied, and NGS nonavailability. Focusing on pair‐matched analysis, our results were controversial with some literature data, suggesting that t‐AML is not an independent risk factor for poor prognosis but rather an accumulation of patients whose probability of harboring other risk factors is higher. The recent ELN2022 update of AML providing an interesting hierarchical classification should allow to better characterize t‐AML and prove if this entity is an independent risk factor for poor prognosis or not.

In conclusion, the best therapeutic strategy for patients with t‐AML needs to take into consideration age, performance status, prognostic factors while integrating newly available treatment. For older t‐AML patients and young patients with comorbidities not eligible for IC and/or Allo‐HCT, HMA or cytarabine associated to venetoclax with or without targeted therapies (FLT3, IDH inhibitors, or anti‐CD47 antibody especially for TP53 mutated patients) seems to be the best therapeutic option. Considering patients eligible for Allo‐HCT, to decrease toxicity and improve results after transplantation, prior CPX‐351 based chemotherapy should be privileged. Finally, the very poor results of the BSC strategy in t‐AML and availability of new therapeutic approaches, lead us to ensure an exhaustive analysis of noneligibility criteria of t‐AML patients before allocating them to BSC strategy.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

Amine Belhabri: Conceptualization (lead); data curation (lead); formal analysis (equal); investigation (equal); methodology (equal); resources (equal); supervision (lead); validation (lead); writing – original draft (lead); writing – review and editing (lead). MAEL HEIBLIG: Conceptualization (equal); data curation (equal); formal analysis (equal); methodology (equal); resources (equal); validation (equal); writing – original draft (supporting); writing – review and editing (supporting). Stephane MORISSET: Formal analysis (lead); methodology (equal); software (lead); validation (equal); writing – original draft (equal); writing – review and editing (equal). LILIANA VILA: Conceptualization (supporting); data curation (supporting); resources (supporting). CLEMENCE SANTANA: Resources (supporting); writing – original draft (supporting). Emmanuelle Nicolas‐Virelizier: Resources (supporting); writing – original draft (supporting). Sandrine Hayette: Conceptualization (equal); data curation (equal); resources (equal). Isabelle Tigaud: Conceptualization (equal); data curation (equal); resources (equal). Adriana Plesa: Conceptualization (equal); data curation (equal); resources (equal). Hélène Labussiere‐Wallet: Resources (supporting); writing – original draft (supporting). Mohamad Sobh: Formal analysis (supporting); methodology (supporting); supervision (equal); validation (supporting); writing – original draft (supporting). Anne‐Sophie Michallet: Resources (supporting); writing – original draft (supporting). Balsat Marie: Resources (supporting); writing – original draft (supporting). Franck Emmanuel Nicolini: Resources (equal); writing – original draft (equal). Yann Guillermin: Resources (supporting); writing – original draft (supporting). Fossard Gaëlle: Resources (supporting); writing – original draft (supporting). Laure Lebras: Resources (supporting); writing – original draft (supporting). Philippe Rey: Resources (supporting); writing – original draft (supporting). Lucie Jauffret‐Bertholon: Resources (supporting); writing – original draft (supporting). MARIE‐CHARLOTTE LAUDE: Resources (supporting); writing – original draft (supporting). Loron Sandrine: Resources (supporting); writing – original draft (supporting). Mauricette Michallet: Conceptualization (lead); data curation (lead); formal analysis (equal); methodology (equal); resources (equal); validation (lead); writing – original draft (lead); writing – review and editing (lead).

FUNDING INFORMATION

This study was not financially supported.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

The authors do not declare any conflict of interest.

ETHICS STATEMENT

This study is exempt from ethical approval according to our regional IRB stating. Registry number assigned to the treatment: R201‐004‐292.

All patients who did not die did not refuse the use of their health data during their lifetime after an individual call by the physician in charge of the study (Leon Berard cancer center, Lyon) and his counterpart at Univesity Hospital Lyon Sud.

Supporting information

Figures S1–S2

Click here for additional data file.

Tables S1–S2

Click here for additional data file.

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Not applicable.

REFERENCES

1 Arber DA , Orazi A , Hasserjian R , et al. The 2016 revision to the World Health Organization classification of myeloid neoplasms and acute leukemia . Blood . 2016 ; 127 ( 20 ): 2391 ‐ 2405 . 27069254 10.1182/blood-2016-03-643544

2 Fianchi L , Pagano L , Piciocchi A , et al. Characteristics and outcome of therapy‐related myeloid neoplasms: report from the Italian network on secondary leukemias . Am J Hematol . 2015 ; 90 ( 5 ): e80 ‐ e85 . 25653205 10.1002/ajh.23966

3 Morton LM , Dores GM , Tucker MA , et al. Evolving risk of therapy‐related acute myeloid leukemia following cancer chemotherapy among adults in the United States, 1975‐2008 . Blood . 2013 ; 121 ( 15 ): 2996 ‐ 3004 . 23412096 10.1182/blood-2012-08-448068 PMC3624944

4 Wheatley K , Brookes CL , Howman AJ , et al. Prognostic factor analysis of the survival of elderly patients with AML in the MRC AML11 and LRF AML14 trials . Br J Haematol . 2009 ; 145 ( 5 ): 598 ‐ 605 . 19344426 10.1111/j.1365-2141.2009.07663.x

5 Feldman EJ . Does therapy‐related AML have a poor prognosis, independent of the cytogenetic/molecular determinants? Best Pract Res Clin Haematol . 2011 ; 24 ( 4 ): 523 ‐ 526 . 22127315 10.1016/j.beha.2011.09.008

6 Bolton KL , Ptashkin RN , Gao T , et al. Cancer therapy shapes the fitness landscape of clonal hematopoiesis . Nat Genet . 2020 ; 52 ( 11 ): 1219 ‐ 1226 . 33106634 10.1038/s41588-020-00710-0 PMC7891089

7 Martin JE , Khalife‐Hachem S , Grinda T , et al. Therapy‐related myeloid neoplasms following treatment with PARP inhibitors: new molecular insights . Ann Oncol . 2021 ; 28 ( 21 ): 1176 ‐ 1175 . 10.1016/j.annonc.2021.04.015 34107346

8 Kuzmanovic T , Patel BJ , Sanikommu SR , et al. Genomics of therapy‐related myeloid neoplasms . Haematologica . 2020 ; 105 ( 3 ): e98 ‐ e101 . 31413096 10.3324/haematol.2019.219352 PMC7049337

9 Quian Z , Joslin JM , Tennant TR , et al. Cytogenetic and genetic pathways in therapy‐related acute myeloid leukemia . Chem Biol Interact . 2010 ; 184 ( 1–2 ): 50 ‐ 57 . 19958752 10.1016/j.cbi.2009.11.025 PMC4642715

10 Wong TN , Ramsingh G , Young AL , et al. Role of TP53 mutations in the origin and evolution of therapy‐related acute myeloid leukaemia . Nature . 2015 ; 518 ( 7540 ): 552 ‐ 555 . 25487151 10.1038/nature13968 PMC4403236

11 Ok CY , Patel KP , Garcia‐Manero G , et al. Mutational profiling of therapy‐related myelodysplastic syndromes and acute myeloid leukemia by next generation sequencing, a comparison with de novo diseases . Leuk Res . 2015 ; 39 ( 3 ): 348 ‐ 354 . 25573287 10.1016/j.leukres.2014.12.006 PMC5548131

12 Mistry AR , Felix CA , Whitmarsh RJ , et al. DNA topoisomerase II in therapy‐related acute promyelocytic leukemia . N Engl J Med . 2005 ; 352 ( 15 ): 1529 ‐ 1538 . 15829534 10.1056/NEJMoa042715

13 Ostgard LS , Kjeldsen E , Holm MS , et al. Reasons for treating secondary AML as de novo AML . Eur J Haematol . 2010 ; 85 ( 3 ): 217 ‐ 226 . 20456491 10.1111/j.1600-0609.2010.01464.x

14 Kern W , Haferlach T , Schnittger S , Hiddemann W , Schoch C . Prognosis in therapy‐related acute myeloid leukemia and impact of kayotype . J Clin Oncol . 2004 ; 22 ( 12 ): 2510 ‐ 2511 . 15197216 10.1200/JCO.2004.99.301

15 Chen Y , Estrov Z , Pierce S , et al. Myeloid neoplasms after breast cancer: “therapy‐related” not an independent poor prognostic factor . Leuk Lymphoma . 2015 ; 56 ( 4 ): 1012 ‐ 1019 . 25048874 10.3109/10428194.2014.946023 PMC4326620

16 Murthy GS , Hamadani M , Dhakal B , Hari P , Atallah E . Incidence and survival of therapy related myeloid neoplasm in United States . Leuk Res . 2018 ; 71 : 95 ‐ 99 . 30048839 10.1016/j.leukres.2018.07.013

17 Fianchi L , Criscuolo M , Fabiani E , et al. Therapy‐related myeloid neoplasms: clinical perspectives . Onco Targets Ther . 2018 ; 17 ( 11 ): 5909 ‐ 5915 . 10.2147/OTT.S101333 PMC6149829 30271175

18 Kayser S , Döhner K , Krauter J , et al. The impact of therapy‐related acute myeloid leukemia (AML) on outcome in 2853 adult patients with newly diagnosed AML . Blood . 2011 ; 117 ( 7 ): 2137 ‐ 2145 . 21127174 10.1182/blood-2010-08-301713

19 DiNardo CD , Jonas BA , Pullarkat V , et al. Azacytidine and venetoclax in previously untreated acute myeloid leukemia . N Engl J Med . 2020 ; 383 ( 7 ): 617 ‐ 629 . 32786187 10.1056/NEJMoa2012971

20 Metafuni E , Chiusolo P , Laurenti L , et al. Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in therapy‐related myeloid neoplasms (t‐MN) of the adult: monocentric observational study and review of the literature . Mediterr J Hematol Infect Dis . 2018 ; 10 ( 1 ): e2018005 . 29326802 10.4084/MJHID.2018.005 PMC5760063

21 Madanat YF , Gerds AT . Can allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant cure therapy‐related acute leukemia? Best Pract Res Clin Haematol . 2019 ; 32 ( 1 ): 104 ‐ 113 . 30927969 10.1016/j.beha.2019.02.011

22 Lancet JE , Uy GL , Cortes JE , et al. CPX‐351 (cytarabine and daunorubicin) liposome for injection versus conventional cytarabine plus daunorubicin in older patients with newly diagnosed secondary acute myeloid leukemia . J Clin Oncol . 2018 ; 36 ( 26 ): 2684 ‐ 2692 . 30024784 10.1200/JCO.2017.77.6112 PMC6127025

23 Döhner H , Estey EH , Amadori S , et al. European LeukemiaNet. Diagnosis and management of acute myeloid leukemia in adults: recommendations from an international expert panel, on behalf of the European LeukemiaNet . Blood . 2010 ; 115 ( 3 ): 453 ‐ 474 . 19880497 10.1182/blood-2009-07-235358

24 Papaemmanuil E , Gerstung M , Bullinger L , et al. Genomic classification and prognosis in acute myeloid leukemia . N Engl J Med . 2016 ; 374 ( 23 ): 2209 ‐ 2221 . 27276561 10.1056/NEJMoa1516192 PMC4979995

25 Döhner H , Estey EH , Grimwade D , et al. Diagnosis and management of AML in adults: 2017 ELN recommendations from an international expert panel . Blood . 2017 ; 129 ( 4 ): 424 ‐ 447 . 27895058 10.1182/blood-2016-08-733196 PMC5291965

26 Döhner H , Wei AH , Appelbaum FR , et al. Diagnosis and management of AML in adults: 2022 recommendations from an international expert panel on behalf of the ELN . Blood . 2022 ; 140 ( 12 ): 1345 ‐ 1377 . 35797463 10.1182/blood.2022016867

27 Flora R , Grimwade D . Real‐time quantitative RT‐PCR to detect fusion gene transcripatients associated with AML . Methods Mol Med . 2004 ; 91 : 151 ‐ 173 . 14573936 10.1385/1-59259-433-6:151

28 Carreras E , Dufour C , Mohty M , et al. The EBMT Handbook Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation and Cellular Therapies . Springer ; 2019 . doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-02278-5 32091673

29 Voso MT , Falconi G , Fabiani E . What's new in the pathogenesis and treatment of therapy‐related myeloid neoplasms . Blood . 2021 ; 138 ( 9 ): 749 ‐ 757 . 33876223 10.1182/blood.2021010764

30 Dumas PY , Bertoli S , Bérard E , et al. Azacytidine or intensive chemotherapy for older patients with secondary or therapy‐related acute myeloid leukemia . Oncotarget . 2017 ; 8 ( 45 ): 79126 ‐ 79136 . 29108292 10.18632/oncotarget.15988 PMC5668025

31 Nilsson C , Linde F , Hulrgardh E , et al. Characterization of therapy‐related acute myeloid leukemia: increasing incidence and prognostic implications . Haematologica . 2023 ; 108 ( 4 ): 1015 ‐ 1025 . 36005563 10.3324/haematol.2022.281233 PMC10071134

32 Akhtari M , Bhatt VR , Tandra PK , et al. Therapy‐related myeloid neoplasms after autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in lymphoma patients . Cancer Biol Ther . 2013 ; 14 ( 12 ): 1077 ‐ 1088 . 24025414 10.4161/cbt.26342 PMC3912029

33 Abruzzese E , Radford JE , Miller JS , et al. Detection of abnormal pretransplant clones in progenitor cells of patients who developed myelodysplasia after autologous transplantation . Blood . 1999 ; 94 ( 5 ): 1814 ‐ 1819 . 10477708

34 Chakraborty S , Sun CL , Francisco L , et al. Accelerated telomere shortening precedes development of therapy‐related myelodysplasia or acute myelogenous leukemia after autologous transplantation for lymphoma . J Clin Oncol . 2009 ; 27 ( 5 ): 791 ‐ 798 . 19124806 10.1200/JCO.2008.17.1033 PMC2645091

35 Palumbo A , Bringhen S , Kumar SK , et al. Second primary malignancies with lenalidomide therapy for newly diagnosed myeloma: a meta‐analysis of individual patient data . Lancet Oncol . 2014 ; 15 ( 3 ): 333 ‐ 342 . 24525202 10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70609-0

36 Koontz MZ , Horning SJ , Balise R , et al. Risk of therapy‐related secondary leukemia in hodgkin lymphoma: the Stanford university experience over three generations of clinical trials . J Clin Oncol . 2013 ; 31 ( 5 ): 592 ‐ 598 . 23295809 10.1200/JCO.2012.44.5791 PMC3565182

37 Singh A , Herr MM , Griffiths EA , et al. Emerging trends of therapy related myeloid neoplasms following modern cancer therapeutics in the United States . Nat Sci Rep . 2021 ; 11 ( 1 ): 23284 . 10.1038/s41598-021-02497-4 PMC8639740 34857802

38 Patel AA , Rojek AE , Drazer MW , et al. Therapy‐related myeloid neoplasms in 109 patients after radiation monotherapy . Blood Adv . 2021 ; 5 ( 20 ): 4140 ‐ 4148 . 34492705 10.1182/bloodadvances.2021004964 PMC8945635

39 Chantadisai M , Kulkarni HR , Baum RP . Therapy‐related myeloid neoplasm after peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT) in 1631 patients from our 20 years of experiences: prognostic parameters and overall survival . Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging . 2021 ; 48 ( 5 ): 1390 ‐ 1398 . 33247328 10.1007/s00259-020-05127-9

40 Morice PM , Leary A , Dolladille C , et al. Myelodysplastic syndrome and acute myeloid leukaemia in patients treated with PARP inhibitors: a safety meta‐analysis of randomised controlled trials and a retrospective study of the WHO pharmacovigilance database . Lancet Haematol . 2021 ; 8 ( 2 ): e122 ‐ e134 . 33347814 10.1016/S2352-3026(20)30360-4

41 Gillis NK , Ball M , Zhang Q , et al. Clonal haemopoiesis and therapy‐related myeloid malignancies in elderly patients: a proof‐of‐concept, case‐control study . Lancet Oncol . 2017 ; 18 ( 1 ): 112 ‐ 121 . 27927582 10.1016/S1470-2045(16)30627-1 PMC7771361

42 Takahashi K , Wang F , Kantarjian H , et al. Preleukaemic clonal haemopoiesis and risk of therapy‐related myeloid neoplasms: a case‐control study . Lancet Oncol . 2017 ; 18 ( 1 ): 100 ‐ 111 . 27923552 10.1016/S1470-2045(16)30626-X PMC5405697

43 Berger G , Kroeze LI , Koorenhof‐Scheele TN , et al. Early detection and evolution of preleukemic clones in therapy‐related myeloid neoplasms following autologous SCT . Blood . 2018 ; 131 ( 16 ): 1846 ‐ 1857 . 29311096 10.1182/blood-2017-09-805879

44 Stoddart A , Wang J , Fernald AA , et al. Cytotoxic therapy‐induced effects on both hematopoietic and marrow stromal cells promotes therapy‐related myeloid neoplasms . Blood Cancer Discov . 2020 ; 1 ( 1 ): 32 ‐ 47 . 32924016 10.1158/2643-3230.BCD-19-0028 PMC7486063

45 Smith SM , Le Beau MM , Huo D , et al. Clinical‐cytogenetic associations in 306 patients with therapy‐related myelodysplasia and myeloid leukemia: the University of Chicago series . Blood . 2003 ; 102 ( 1 ): 43 ‐ 52 . 12623843 10.1182/blood-2002-11-3343

46 Mauritzson N , Albin M , Rylander L , et al. Pooled analysis of clinical and cytogenetic features in treatment‐related and de novo adult acute myeloid leukemia and myelodysplastic syndromes based on a consecutive series of 761 patients analyzed 1976‐1993 and in 5098 unselected cases reported in the literature 1974‐2001 . Leukemia . 2002 ; 16 ( 12 ): 2366 ‐ 2378 . 12454741 10.1038/sj.leu.2402713

47 Andersen MT , Andersen MK , Christiansen DH , Pedersen‐Bjergaard J . NPM1 mutations in therapy‐related acute myeloid leukemia with uncharacteristic features . Leukemia . 2008 ; 22 ( 5 ): 951 ‐ 955 . 18273044 10.1038/leu.2008.17

48 Lindsley RC , Mar BG , Mazzola E , et al. Acute myeloid leukemia ontogeny is defined by distinct somatic mutations . Blood . 2015 ; 125 ( 9 ): 1367 ‐ 1376 . 25550361 10.1182/blood-2014-11-610543 PMC4342352

49 Hiwase D , Hahn C , Tran EN , et al. TP53 mutation in therapy‐related myeloid neoplasm defines a distinct molecular subtype . Blood . 2023 ; 141 ( 9 ): 1087 ‐ 1091 . 36574363 10.1182/blood.2022018236

50 Boddu PC , Kantarjian HM , Ravandi F , et al. Characteristics and outcomes of older patients with secondary acute myeloid leukemia according to treatment approach . Cancer . 2017 ; 123 ( 6 ): 3050 ‐ 3060 . 28387922 10.1002/cncr.30704 PMC5544569

51 Chao MP , Takimoto CH , Feng DD , et al. Therapeutic targeting of the macrophage immune checkpoint CD47 in myeloid malignancies . Front Oncol . 2020 ; 22 ( 9 ): 1380 . 10.3389/fonc.2019.01380 PMC6990910 32038992

52 Wei AH , Strickland SA Jr , Hou JZ , et al. Venetoclax combined with low‐dose cytarabine for previously untreated patients with acute myeloid leukemia: results from a phase Ib/II study . J Clin Oncol . 2019 ; 37 ( 15 ): 1277 ‐ 1284 . 30892988 10.1200/JCO.18.01600 PMC6524989

53 Sallman DA , DeZern AE , Garcia‐Manero G , et al. Eprenetapopt (APR‐246) and Azacytidine in TP53‐mutant myelodysplastic syndromes . J Clin Oncol . 2021 ; 39 ( 14 ): 1584 ‐ 1594 . 33449813 10.1200/JCO.20.02341 PMC8099410

54 Guolo F , Fianchi L , Minetto P , et al. CPX‐351 treatment in secondary acute myeloblastic leukemia is effective and improves the feasibility of allogeneic stem cell transplantation: results of the Italian compassionate use program . Blood Cancer J . 2020 ; 10 ( 10 ): 96 ‐ 106 . 33024084 10.1038/s41408-020-00361-8 PMC7538937

55 Jentzsch M , Grimm J , Bill M , et al. ELN risk stratification and outcomes in secondary and therapy‐related AML patients consolidated with allogeneic stem cell transplantation . Bone Marrow Transplant . 2021 ; 56 ( 4 ): 936 ‐ 945 . 33208914 10.1038/s41409-020-01129-1 PMC8035074

56 Baranwal A , Chhetri R , Yeung D , et al. Factors predicting survival following alloSCT in patients with therapy‐related AML and MDS: a multicenter study . Bone Marrow Transplant . 2023 ; 58 : 769 ‐ 776 . 37012415 10.1038/s41409-023-01970-0

57 Martinez‐Cuadrόn D , Megias‐Vericat JE , Serrano J , et al. Treatment patterns and outcomes of 2310 patients with secondary acute myeloid leukemia: a PETHEMA registry study . Blood Adv . 2022 ; 9 ( 4 ): 1279 ‐ 1295 . 10.1182/bloodadvances.2021005335 PMC8864639 34794172