Literature review and expert opinion on the treatment of high-risk acute myeloid leukemia in patients who are eligible for intensive chemotherapy.

In patients with Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML), the assessment of disease risk plays a central role in the era of personalized medicine. Indeed, integrating baseline clinical and biological features on a case-by-case basis is not only essential to select which treatment would likely result in a higher probability of achieving complete remission, but also to dynamically customize any subsequent therapeutic intervention. For young high-risk patients with low comorbidities burden and in good general conditions (also called "fit" patients), intensive chemotherapy followed by allogeneic stem cell transplantation still represents the backbone of any therapeutic program. However, with the approval of novel promising agents in both the induction/consolidation and the maintenance setting, the algorithms for the management of AML patients considered eligible for intensive chemotherapy are in constant evolution. In this view, we selected burning issues regarding the identification and management of high-risk AML, aiming to provide practical advice to facilitate their daily clinical management in patients considered eligible for intensive chemotherapy.

Identification of Novel Potential Predisposing Variants in Familial Acute Myeloid Leukemia.

BACKGROUND: Myeloid neoplasms, including acute myeloid leukemia, have been traditionally among the less investigated cancer types concerning germline predisposition. Indeed, myeloid neoplasms with germline predisposition are challenging to identify because often display similar clinical and morphological characteristics of sporadic cases and have similar age at diagnosis. However, a misidentifications of familiarity in myeloid neoplasms have a critical impact on clinical management both for the carriers and their relatives. AIMS: We conducted a family segregation study, in order to identify novel cancer predisposing genes in myeloid neoplasms and classify novel identified variants. METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed a thorough genomic analysis using a large custom gene panel (256 genes), the Myelo-Panel, targeted on cancer predisposing genes. In particular, we assessed both germline and somatic variants in four families, each with two siblings, who developed hematological neoplasms: seven acute myeloid leukemia and one Philadelphia-positive chronic myeloid leukemia. In each family, we identified at least one novel potentially predisposing variant, affecting also genes not included in the current European LeukemiaNet guidelines for AML management. Moreover, we suggest reclassification of two germline variants as pathogenic: likely pathogenic p.S21Tfs*139 in CEPBA and VUS p.K392Afs*66 in DDX41. CONCLUSION: We believe that predisposition to hematological neoplasms is still underestimated and particularly difficult to diagnosed. Considering that misidentification of familiarity in myeloid neoplasms have a critical impact on the clinical management both for the carriers and their relatives, our study highlights the importance of revision, in this clinical context, of clinical practices that should include thorough reconstruction of family history and in-depth genetic testing.