Диагностика и рискова стратификация на острата лимфобластна левкемия: какво ново?

Резюме

Диагностиката и рисковата стратификация на острата лимфобластна левкемия (ОЛЛ) претърпяха фундаментална еволюция с въвеждането на 5-ото издание на класификацията на СЗО (WHO 2022) и Международния консенсусен класификатор (ICC 2022). Тези системи налагат интеграция на морфологични, имунофенотипни и прецизни молекулярно-генетични данни. Съвременният диагностичен процес преминава от количествена морфологична оценка към мултипараметърна флоуцитометрия (MFC) за определяне на клетъчната линия и специфични фенотипове като ETP-ALL. ICC 2022 разширява таксономията с девет нови категории, базирани на генни реаранжименти и специфични мутации, включително детайлно разграничаване на Ph-позитивните подтипове (ALL-L и ALL-M). Прогнозата се оценява чрез комбиниране на статични клинични фактори (възраст, WBC, екстрамедуларно засягане) и генетични аберации. Особено внимание се отделя на Ph-подобната ОЛЛ (Ph-like ALL) като мощен предиктивен фактор за таргетна терапия с TKI или JAK инхибитори. Измеримата остатъчна болест (MRD) е утвърдена като най-значимия динамичен прогностичен маркер. Докато мултипараметърната флоуцитометрия постига чувствителност 10−5, секвенирането от следващо поколение (NGS) позволява детекция до 10−6, дефинирайки концепцията за „дълбока молекулярна ремисия“.

Интегрираните системи за рисково-адаптирана терапия (като COG и BFM) използват MRD статуса в ключови времеви точки за прецизиране на лечението. Бъдещето на диагностиката е насочено към стандартизиране на ултрачувствителните методи с цел оптимизиране на терапевтичния отговор и предотвратяване на рецидиви.

Ключови думи: Остра лимфобластна левкемия (ОЛЛ), ICC 2022, рискова стратификация, измерима остатъчна болест (MRD), Ph-подобна ОЛЛ, NGS

To access this content, you must purchase Годишен абонамент.

Библиография

  1. Kruse A, et al. NGS-based MRD monitoring in ALL. HemaSphere. 2020;4(1):e328.
  2. WHO Classification of Tumours Editorial Board. Haematolymphoid Tumours. 5th ed. Lyon (France): International Agency for Research on Cancer; 2022.
  3. Arber DA, et al. International Consensus Classification of Myeloid Neoplasms and Acute Leukemias: integrating morphology, clinical, and genomic data. Blood. 2022;140(11):1200-1228.
  4. Roberts KG. Genetics and prognosis of ALL. Hematology Am Soc Hematol Educ Program. 2018;2018(1):70-80.
  5. Iacobucci I, Mullighan CG. Genetic Basis of Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(9):975-983.
  6. Onciu M. Acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Hematol Oncol Clin North Am. 2009;23(4):655-674.
  7. Dworzak MN, et al. Flow Cytometry in ALL. Methods Mol Biol. 2017;1541:245-263.
  8. Basso G, et al. Flow cytometric immunophenotyping in ALL. Methods Cell Biol. 2004;75:533-560.
  9. Bene MC, et al. Proposals for the immunological classification of acute leukemias. European Group for the Immunological Characterization of Leukemias (EGIL). Leukemia. 1995;9(10):1783-1786.
  10. Coustan-Smith E, et al. Early T-cell precursor leukaemia: a subtype of very high-risk acute lymphoblastic leukaemia. Lancet Oncol. 2009;10(2):147-156.
  11. Pui CH, et al. Philadelphia chromosome-positive acute lymphoblastic leukemia: current concepts and future directions. Cancer Cell. 2017;31(4):473-491.
  12. Gu Z, et al. Genomic analyses identify recurrent MEF2D fusions in B-cell precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Nat Commun. 2016;7:13331.
  13. Yasuda T, et al. Recurrent DUX4 fusions in B-cell precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia of adolescents and young adults. Nat Genet. 2016;48(5):569-574.
  14. Pui CH, Evans WE. Acute lymphoblastic leukemia. N Engl J Med. 2006;354(2):166-178.
  15. Rowley JD. The role of chromosome translocations in leukemogenesis. Semin Hematol. 1999;36(4 Suppl 7):59-72.
  16. Moorman AV, et al. Age-specific cytogenetic profiles and outcomes in adult ALL. Leukemia. 2010;24(11):1851-1858.
  17. Smith M, et al. Uniform approach to risk classification and treatment assignment for children with newly diagnosed B-lineage ALL. J Clin Oncol. 1996;14(1):18-24.
  18. Sanders RP, et al. Central nervous system involvement in children with ALL. Blood. 2005;105(3):1011-1015.
  19. Lazarus HM, et al. Central nervous system involvement in adult ALL at diagnosis: results from the international ALL trial (MRC UKALL XII/ECOG E2993). Blood. 2006;108(2):465-472.
  20. Paulsson K, Johansson B. High hyperdiploid childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Genes Chromosomes Cancer. 2009;48(8):631-660.
  21. Shurtleff SA, et al. TEL/AML1 fusion in childhood B-lineage acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Leukemia. 1995;9(12):1985-1989.
  22. Forestier E, et al. Prognostic impact of TEL/AML1 in childhood ALL. Blood. 2003;102(6):2141-2150.
  23. Thomas X, et al. Outcome of treatment in adults with newly diagnosed Philadelphia chromosome-positive ALL. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22(20):4075-4086.
  24. Marschalek R. Mechanisms of MLL/KMT2A rearrangement. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2017;995:79-94.
  25. Nachman J, et al. Hypodiploid ALL in children and adolescents. Blood. 2007;110(4):1112-1115.
  26. Harrison CJ, et al. Intrachromosomal amplification of chromosome 21 (iAMP21) in childhood ALL. Blood. 2014;123(21):3266-3277.
  27. Den Boer ML, et al. A subtype of childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia with poor treatment outcome: a genome-wide classification study. Lancet Oncol. 2009;10(2):125-134.
  28. Roberts KG, et al. Targetable kinase fusions in Philadelphia chromosome-like ALL. N Engl J Med. 2014;371(11):1005-1015.
  29. Harvey RC, et al. Identification of novel cluster groups in pediatric high-risk B-ALL. Blood. 2010;116(23):4874-4884.
  30. Jain N, et al. Ph-like acute lymphoblastic leukemia in adults. Blood. 2017;129(5):572-581.
  31. Borowitz MJ, et al. Minimal residual disease detection in childhood ALL. Blood. 2003;102(3):788-794.
  32. Bassan R, et al. Improved outcome of adult ALL by risk-adapted strategy based on MRD monitoring. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(20):3395-3401.
  33. Bruggemann M, et al. Clinical significance of MRD in adult ALL. Blood. 2006;107(3):1116-1123.
  34. Faham M, et al. Deep sequencing can effectively monitor minimal residual disease in ALL. Sci Transl Med. 2012;4(134):134ra63.
  35. Wood B, et al. Measurable residual disease detection by high-throughput sequencing improves risk stratification for children with B-ALL. Blood. 2018;131(12):1350-1359.
  36. Logan AC, et al. High-throughput VDJ sequencing for quantification of minimal residual disease in ALL and B-cell NHL. Blood. 2011;118(16):4367-4372.
  37. Schultz KR, et al. Risk-and response-based classification of childhood B-precursor ALL: a Children’s Oncology Group report. Blood. 2007;109(3):926-935.
  38. Conter V, et al. Molecular response to treatment redefines all prognostic factors in children and adolescents with B-cell precursor ALL. Blood. 2010;115(16):3206-3214.
  39. Pieters R, et al. Prednisone response is the strongest predictor of treatment outcome in infant ALL. Blood. 1999;94(4):1209-1215.
  40. AIEOP-BFM ALL 2000 study results. Blood. 2010;115(16):3206-3214.
  41. Winter SS, et al. Prognostic significance of ETP phenotype and minimal residual disease in T-ALL: a Children’s Oncology Group study. Blood. 2023;142(24):2069-2081.
  42. Wood BL, et al. Prognostic impact of minimal residual disease at end of consolidation in NCI standard risk B-lymphoblastic leukemia: A report from the Children’s Oncology Group. Pediatric Blood & Cancer. 2021.
  43. NCCN Guidelines Version 2.2024. Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia.
  44. Brown PA, et al. NCCN Guidelines Insights: Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia, Version 1.2017. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2017;15(9):1091-1102.
  45. Short NJ, et al. Minimal residual disease in ALL: how to test and who to treat. Blood. 2019;133(25):2627-2640.

Адрес за кореспонденция:

д-р Х. Бурнусузов

Отделение по педиатрия, УМБАЛ “Пълмед” – Пловдив
ул. Перущица, 1А

4002, Пловив

e-mail: hassan_md@abv.bg