Intensive remission chemotherapy followed by post-remission consolidation and maintenance therapies has achieved complete remission rates of 75% to 90% and 3-year survival rates of 25% to 50% in adults with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). These results, although promising, are still less favorable than those achieved in childhood ALL. However, various novel experimental and clinical approaches show promise for improving cure rates. Also, specific therapies directed at high-risk subgroups with ALL are beginning to emerge. Detection of specific chromosomal abnormalities at diagnosis identifies patients who are at risk of failing to achieve remission, as well as those who are likely to have short, intermediate, or prolonged disease-free intervals after successful remission induction. Such prognostic information may, ultimately, be used to assign risk categories and to individualize post-remission therapy.
Acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) accounts for 20% of all acute leukemias seen in patients over 20 years of age, and affects approximately 2 persons per 100,000 in the United States annually. Despite its relative rarity, ALL continues to generate considerable interest because of its high mortality when untreated, and because of the biologic and therapeutic lessons learned from studying this disease.
The success of therapy in childhood ALL has also fueled a quest for similar cure rates in adults, using intensive remission induction chemotherapy and the concepts of post-remission consolidation and maintenance therapies. So far, treatment for adult ALL has yielded inferior, but increasingly promising, complete remission rates of 75% to 90% and 3-year survival rates of 25% to 50%.1 Moreover, recent studies have contributed to an understanding of the biology of ALL and its prognostic factors [2-4]. Importantly, specific therapies directed at relatively homogeneous subgroups of ALL are now emerging. Parallel improvements in supportive care, such as antibiotic prophylaxis, the appropriate use of bone marrow transplantation, and perhaps the use of hematopoietic growth factors have also contributed to better survival rates.
The diagnosis of ALL continues to rely on morphology and cytochemistry. However, with the increasing availability of immunophenotyping by flow cytometry, this technique has become an important part of the diagnostic evaluation (Table 1). Thus, in the initial assessment of the acute leukemia patient, a relatively limited panel of monoclonal antibodies will allow patients to be divided into those with ALL derived from either B lymphocytes (B-lineage) or T lymphocytes (T-lineage) and those with acute myeloid leukemia (AML). The distinction between ALL and AML is the critical first step in the selection of therapy, and when this division is not correctly made, poor results are common.
Other diseases may be confused with ALL, the most common of which are listed in Table 2. Minimally differentiated AML (MO by the French-American-British Cooperative Group [FAB] criteria) and acute undifferentiated leukemia lack lymphoid surface markers, and are rarely cured with typical ALL treatment.
The diagnosis of AML-MO is often difficult to make, as it relies on morphology, cytochemistry, and immunophenotyping. These cells usually have FAB-L2 morphology and are negative for myeloperoxidase or Sudan Black B reactivity. Thus, patients with AML-MO are often mistakenly entered into ALL clinical trials, where their outcome has been poor. However, these cases, by definition, do not express lymphoid-specific markers. They may be positive for terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase (TdT) reactivity and CD7 expression, but these markers are not specific for lymphoblasts. In contrast, AML-MO cells are positive for CD13, CD33, or other myeloid markers, suggesting a minimal level of differentiation along the granulocytic pathway.
Occasional patients may have hybrid acute leukemia, wherein the blast cells express both myeloid and lymphoid surface markers. They may be either bilineal, when such features are seen in separate cell populations, or biphenotypic, when they are seen on the same cell. In the former case, therapy is usually based on the dominant pattern.
In approximately 20% of cases of typical ALL in adults, the individual lymphoblasts express both myeloid and lymphoid antigens. These cases are more commonly B-lineage than T-lineage in origin. The myeloid antigen-positive ALL immunophenotype does not appear to be associated with a poor outcome in children, but the data are less clear in adults . However, recent improvements in treatment may have overcome the poor prognosis formerly associated with myeloid antigen expression in adult ALL [4,6].
Together, the use of morphology, cytochemical stains, immunophenotyping, and electron microscopy can reliably differentiate between AML and ALL in more than 95% of patients. Most cases of ALL are strongly positive for terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase. Lymphoblasts that are negative for terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase often have FAB-L3 morphology, and correspond to mature B-cell ALL. Such cases are sometimes called Burkitt cell ALL, because of their similarities with Burkitt's lymphoma. The lymphoblasts of these patients generally express surface membrane immunoglobulins, and the 8;14 translocation or one of its variants [t(2;8) or t(8;22)] is usually present.
Cytogenetic evaluation has become a critical part of the pretreatment evaluation of patients with ALL . Indeed, the most predictable clinical outcomes occur when patients are classified according to recurring cytogenetic abnormal- ities.4 The most common of these involves the Philadelphia chromosome . Originally described in chronic myelogenous leukemia, this rearrangement involves the translocation of the ABL proto-oncogene from chromosome 9 to the breakpoint cluster region (BCR) gene on chromosome 22: t(9;22)(q34;q11). In chronic myelogenous leukemia, this results in the production of the hybrid protein p210, but in Philadelphia-positive ALL, either a p210 or a smaller p190 protein results.
The importance of recognizing this subgroup lies in the considerably shorter survival observed in both childhood and adult Phildelphia-positive ALL cases. Although fewer than 5% of childhood ALL cases are positive for this chromosome, the frequency of positivity increases steadily with age, and approximately 30% of adults with ALL have Philadelphia-positive disease [3,8]. Indeed, the poorer prognosis of adult ALL overall may be due, in part, to the proportionately higher number of Philadelphia-positive cases seen among adults.
Other karyotypes that occur in ALL and have important prognostic significance include t(8;14), t(4;11), and t(1;19). The poorer prognosis associated with certain karyotypes has dictated that different approaches be taken with these patients, as discussed below.
Table 3 lists the adverse prognostic factors that have a major influence on complete remission rates, remission duration, and survival in patients with ALL [1,4]. In multivariate analyses, patients presenting with white blood cell counts > 30,000/µL have had a significantly shorter duration of remission than patients with lower leukocyte counts. However, among patients with T-cell ALL, extreme leukocytosis does not negatively affect outcome .
Older age (> 60 years) is another adverse characteristic. Remission duration and overall survival have decreased in almost every adult ALL trial as the ages of the patient groups have increased. Minor prognostic factors, or those that have had some significance with certain treatment regimens, are the percentage of circulating blast cells; the degree of bone marrow involvement; the presence of hepatomegaly, splenomegaly, or lymphadenopathy; lactate dehydrogenase levels; central nervous system (CNS) involvement at presentation; and the time required to achieve complete remission (eg, > 4 to 6 weeks).
1. Hoelzer D: Treatment of acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Semin Hematol 31:1-15, 1994.
2. Pui C-H, Behm FG, Crist WM: Clinical and biologic relevance of immunologic marker studies in childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Blood 82:343-362, 1993.
3. Westbrook CA, Hooberman AL, Spino C, et al: Clinical significance of the BCR-ABL fusion gene in adult acute lymphoblastic leukemia: A Cancer and Leukemia Group B study (8762). Blood 80:2983-2990, 1992.
4. Larson RA, Dodge RK, Burns CP, et al: A five-drug remission induction regimen with intensive consolidation for adults with acute lymphoblastic leukemia: Cancer and Leukemia Group B study 8811. Blood 1995, in press.
5. Drexler HG, Thiel E, Ludwig W-D: Review of the incidence and clinical relevance of myeloid antigen-positive acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Leukemia 5:637-645, 1991.
6. Sobol RE, Mick R, Royston I, et al: Clinical importance of myeloid antigen expression in adult acute lymphoblastic leukemia. N Engl J Med 316:1111-1117, 1987.
7. Bloomfield CD, Gold AI, Alimena G, et al: Chromosomal abnormalities identify high-risk and low-risk patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Blood 67:415-420, 1986.
8. Secker-Walker LM, Craig JM, Hawkins JM, et al: Philadelphia positive acute lymphoblastic leukemia in adults: Age distribution, BCR breakpoint and prognostic significance. Leukemia 5:196-199, 1991.
9. Hoelzer D, Thiel E, Löffler H, et al: Prognostic factors in a multicenter study for treatment of acute lymphoblastic leukemia in adults. Blood 71:123-131, 1988.
10. Radford JE Jr, Burns CP, Jones MP, et al: Adult acute lymphoblastic leukemia: Results of the Iowa HOP-L protocol. J Clin Oncol 7:58-66, 1989.
11. Hussein KK, Dahlberg S, Head D, et al: Treatment of acute lymphoblastic leukemia in adults with intensive induction, consolidation, and maintenance chemotherapy. Blood 73:57-63, 1989.
12. Linker CA, Levitt LJ, O'Donnell M, et al: Treatment of adult acute lymphoblastic leukemia with intensive cyclical chemotherapy: A follow-up report. Blood 78:2814-2822, 1991.
13. Cassileth PA, Andersen JW, Bennett JM, et al: Adult acute lymphocytic leukemia: The Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group experience. Leukemia 6(suppl 2):178-181, 1992.
14. Mandelli F, Annino L, Vegna ML, et al: GIMEMA ALL 0288: A multicentric study on adult acute lymphoblastic leukemia: Preliminary results. Leukemia 6(suppl 2):182-185, 1992.
15. Kantarjian HM, Walters RS, Keating MJ, et al: Results of the vincristine, doxorubicin, and dexamethasone regimen in adults with standard- and high-risk acute lymphocytic leukemia. J Clin Oncol 8:994-1004, 1990.
16. Gottlieb AJ, Weinberg V, Ellison RR, et al: Efficacy of daunorubicin in the therapy of adult acute lymphocytic leukemia: A prospective randomized trial by Cancer and Leukemia Group B. Blood 64:267-274, 1984.
17. Ellison RR, Mick R, Cuttner J, et al: The effects of postinduction intensification treatment with cytarabine and daunorubicin in adult acute lymphocytic leukemia: A prospective randomized clinical trial by Cancer and Leukemia Group B. J Clin Oncol 9:2002-2015, 1991.
18. Cuttner J, Mick R, Budman DR, et al: Phase III trial of brief intensive treatment of adult acute lymphocytic leukemia comparing daunorubicin and mitoxantrone: A CALGB Study. Leukemia 5:425-431, 1991.
19. Larson RA, Linker CA, Dodge RK, et al: Granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (filgrastim; G-CSF) reduces the time to neutrophil recovery in adults with acute lymphoblastic leukemia receiving intensive remission induction chemotherapy: Cancer and Leukemia Group B Study 9111. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 13:305, 1994.
20. Ottmann OG, Hoelzer D, Gracien E, et al: Concomitant R-metHuG-CSF (filgrastim) and intensive chemoradiotherapy as induction treatment in adult ALL: A randomized multicenter phase II trial. Blood 82(suppl 1):193a, 1993.
21. Ohno R, Tomonaga M, Kobayashi T, et al: Effect of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor after intensive induction therapy in relapsed or refractory acute leukemia. N Engl J Med 323:871-877, 1990.
22. Schauer P, Arlin ZA, Mertelsmann R, et al: Treatment of acute lymphoblastic leukemia in adults: Results of the L-10 and L-10M protocols. J Clin Oncol 1:462-469, 1983.
23. Reiter A, Schrappe M, Ludwig W-D, et al: Favorable outcome of B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia in childhood: A report of three consecutive studies of the BFM Group. Blood 80:2471-2478, 1992.
24. Schwenn MR, Blattner SR, Lynch E, et al: HiC-COM: A 2-month intensive chemotherapy regimen for children with stage III and IV Burkitt's lymphoma and B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia. J Clin Oncol 9:133-138, 1991.
25. Patte C, Philip T, Rodary C, et al: High survival rate in advanced-stage B-cell lymphomas and leukemias without CNS involvement with a short intensive polychemotherapy: Results from the French Pediatric Oncology Society of a randomized trial of 216 children. J Clin Oncol 9:123-132, 1991.
26. Taylor PRA, Reid MM, Proctor SJ: Acute lymphoblastic leukaemia in the elderly. Leukemia Lymphoma 13:373-380, 1994.
27. Preti A, O'Brien S, Robertson L, et al: Acute lymphocytic leukemia in the elderly: Characteristics and outcome with the vincristine-Adriamycin-dexamethasone regimen. Blood 82(suppl 1):57a, 1993.
28. Barrett AJ, Horowitz MM, Ash RC, et al: Bone marrow transplantation for Philadelphia chromosome-positive acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Blood 79:3067-3070, 1992.
29. Barrett AJ, Horowitz MM, Gale RP, et al: Marrow transplantation for acute lymphoblastic leukemia: Factors affecting relapse and survival. Blood 74:862-871, 1989.
30. Horowitz MM, Messerer D, Hoelzer D, et al: Chemotherapy compared with bone marrow transplantation for adults with acute lymphoblastic leukemia in first remission. Ann Intern Med 115:13-18, 1991.
31. Fière D, Lepage E, Sebban C, et al: Adult acute lymphoblastic leukemia: A multicentric randomized trial testing bone marrow transplantation as postremission therapy. J Clin Oncol 11:1990-2001, 1993.
32. Giona F, Test AM, Annino L, et al: Treatment of primary refractory and relapsed acute lymphoblastic leukaemia in children and adults: The GIMEMA/AIEOP experience. Br J Haematol 86:55-61, 1994.