Diagnosis and risk stratification of acutelymphoblastic leukemia:

Abstract

The diagnosis and risk stratification of acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) has undergone a fundamental evolution with the introduction of the 5th edition of the WHO classification (WHO 2022) and the International Consensus Classifier (ICC 2022). These systems require the integration of morphological, immunophenotypic and precise molecular genetic data. The modern diagnostic process is moving
from quantitative morphological assessment to multiparameter flow cytometry (MFC) for cell lineage determination and specific phenotypes such as ETP-ALL. ICC 2022 expands the taxonomy with nine new categories based on gene rearrangements and specific mutations, including a detailed distinction between Ph-positive subtypes (ALL-L and ALL-M). Prognosis is assessed by combining static clinical factors (age, WBC, extramedullary involvement) and genetic aberrations.
Particular attention is paid to Ph-like ALL as a powerful predictor for targeted therapy with TKIs or JAK inhibitors. Measurable residual disease (MRD) has been established as the most significant dynamic prognostic marker. While multiparameter flow cytometry achieves a sensitivity of 10-5, next-generation sequencing (NGS) allows detection of up to 10-6, defining the concept of “deep molecular remission”.
Integrated risk-adapted therapy systems (such as COG and BFM) use MRD status at key time points to refine treatment. The future of diagnostics is directed towards standardizing ultrasensitive methods with the aim of optimizing therapeutic response and preventing relapse.

Key words: Acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), ICC 2022, risk stratification, measurable residual disease (MRD), Ph-like ALL, NGS.

To access this content, you must purchase Годишен абонамент.

Bibliography

  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.

Address for correspondence::

Dr. H. Burnusuzov

Department of Pediatrics, University Hospital “Pulmed” – Plovdiv
1A, Perushtitsa, Str.

4002, Plovdiv

e-mail: hassan_md@abv.bg