Open AccessPF270 IS ACUTE MYELOBLASTIC LEUKEMIA IN CHILDREN UNDER TWO YEARS OF AGE A SPECIFIC ENTITY? A REPORT FROM THE FRENCH ELAM02 STUDY GROUP
Author(s) -
Blais S.,
Boutroux H.,
Pasquet M.,
Leblanc T.,
Fenneteau O.,
Gandemer V.,
Bertrand Y.,
Ducassou S.,
Michel G.,
Nelken B.,
Petit A.,
Cuccuini W.,
Gouache E.,
Marceau A.,
Baruchel A.,
Lapillonne H.,
Leverger G.
Publication year - 2019
Publication title -
hemasphere
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.677
H-Index - 11
ISSN - 2572-9241
DOI - 10.1097/01.hs9.0000559292.18933.88
Subject(s) - medicine , pediatrics , incidence (geometry) , acute myeloblastic leukemia , myeloid leukemia , cohort , population , leukemia , physics , environmental health , optics
Background: The clinical and biological characteristics of children under two years (infants) with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) are different from those of older children. Aims: We aimed to describe the specific characteristics of this population and the potential factors that influence the prognosis. Methods: We analyzed data concerning 438 children with newly‐diagnosed AML treated in the ELAM02 protocol between March 2005 and December 2011, of which 103 were under two years old at diagnosis. The evaluation criteria were overall survival (OS) and event‐free survival (EFS) of infants versus older children. The clinical and biological features were secondary criteria. Results: Infants presented more frequent extra‐medullary presentation than older children. They had a significantly higher proportion of skin lesions and central nervous system involvement (15% vs 3%, P < 0.0001 and 26% vs 12%, P = 0.0005, respectively). The global incidence of KMT2A rearrangements was nearly 55% for infants versus 11% for older children ( P < 0.0001). Median five‐year OS was 70.4% for infants versus 71.4% for older children ( P = 0.83). Five‐year EFS was 67% for infants versus 58% for older children ( P = 0.27). Summary/Conclusion: Infants with AML represent a cohort of patients with specific clinical and biological features. These remarkable differences had no significant impact on their outcome in the ELAM02 protocol.