Factors Influencing Survival after Relapse from Childhood ALL: A Children’s Oncology Group Study.

Abstract

Abstract Despite improvements in front-line therapy for acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), treatment after relapse remains a critical challenge. Examination of outcome after relapse in a large, recently treated, and unselected population provides a useful benchmark for evaluating new approaches. Survival after relapse was tracked on Children’s Cancer Group (CCG) ALL trials. Relapses were categorized by site (isolated or combined bone marrow relapse (MR); isolated central nervous system relapse (CNSR); isolated testicular relapse (TR)), and time from diagnosis to relapse (early < 18 months; intermediate between 18 and 36 months; late > 36 months). We examined the impact of age, sex, ethnicity, initial risk assignment (standard risk (SR) or higher risk (HR)), immunophenotype, length of first remission (CR1), and site of relapse on outcome in multivariate analyses. A total of 9,585 infants, children, and adolescents with newly diagnosed acute lymphoblastic leukemia were enrolled on CCG trials conducted between 1988 and 2002. We examined survival after relapse for 1,874 children with MR, CNSR, or TR. Survival after relapse by site and time to relapse Site MR CNSR TR Time to Relapse n *survival(%) n *survival(%) n *survival(%) *3-year survival Early 498 10 175 49 15 50 Intermediate 378 23 179 73 35 57 Late 488 53 52 77 54 70 Overall survival for any bone marrow relapse was best for late MR and worst for early MR. Early MR was linked to HR presenting features and T-cell disease. Survival after intermediate or late MR was superior for SR patients (p <.05). Survival was better for CNSR or TR than for MR. Older age at diagnosis, male sex, T cell immunopheno-type, and CNS disease at presentation were significant adverse factors for survival after adjustment for site and time to relapse in multivariate analyses (p<.05). Importantly, in the same multivariate analysis, patients treated on more contemporary trials (CCG1952CCG1953CCG1961, and 1962) had inferior survival rates after relapse when compared to patients treated on earlier trials (CCG 1881CCG 1882CCG 1883CCG 1891CCG 1901, and 1922) (p<.001). Importantly, these data from the analysis of a large, unselected group of patients indicates that features at initial presentation and prior therapy influences outcome following relapse. The inferior survival rates of those relapsing on more intensive protocols likely reflects particularly aggressive and chemoresistant disease leading to poor salvage. Increasing the intensity of retrieval therapy is unlikely to improve after relapse and novel therapeutic approaches that target these resistant leukemias are urgently needed for successful treatment of relapsed ALL.