Centre for Cancer Biomarkers CCBIO

CCBIO Seminar

CCBIO Seminar 23.02.17, Øystein Bruserud

Welcome to CCBIO Seminar with speaker Øystein Bruserud from the Leukaemia Research Group, Department of Clinical Science, University of Bergen. The topic is acute myeloid leukemia.


CCBIO seminars logo, background people in a seminar room and a lecturer in front.
Colourbox/CCBIO collage

Apart from the interesting talks, the CCBIO seminars are a good way to meet CCBIO members and associates. Please feel free to inform others about this seminar as all are welcome both to the lecture and the pizza get-together afterwards.

Invited speakerØystein Bruserud, the Leukaemia Research Group, Department of Clinical Science, University of Bergen, Norway.

Title: "Classification and prognostication of acute myeloid leukemia – the past, the present and the future"

Time: February 23rd 2017 at 14:30, Auditorium 4, BBB
Host: Bjørn Tore Gjertsen


Acute myeloid leukemia is a very aggressive and a very heterogeneous disease. The current initial treatment is highly standardized, whereas the further consolidation treatment is based on a prognostic evaluation of the patients. At the time of diagnosis patients are classified according to the WHO classification system that was revised in 2016. This current classification is based on morphology together with genetics, mainly the karyotyping. Although the classification incorporates important genetic abnormalities with regard to response to treatment, it has a limited value with regard to prognostication of the patients because it is incomplete with regard to genetic abnormalities and does not take into account the response to treatment.

The response to treatment is evaluated in different ways, either (i) remaining morphological signs of leukemia 14-17 days after treatment; (ii) complete remission after one induction cycle; or (iii) minimal residual disease (MRD) in patients reaching complete remission. Thus, the current focus on MRD is a natural development from the previous morphological evaluation of response to treatment. The MRD is usually evaluated by PCR or flow cytometry based methods, but despite these advanced technologies analyses of MRD, and even though MRD analyses seem to represent an improvement of patient prognostication it has important limitations mainly due to standardization of sampling and whether the collected samples can be regarded as representative. The analysis of remaining leukemic or preleukemic stem cells may represent a future improvement.

AML is a heterogeneous disease, and it is not difficult to argue that every patient has his/hers own disease. Another problem is the relatively large number of patients with uncommon genetic abnormalities where the prognostic impact is unknown, just to make it easy they are classified to have an intermediate prognosis. A major challenge is to clarify whether there are phenotypic similarities across the genetic differences, and whether these phenotypic similarities are suitable as targets for antileukemic treatment. Finally, a major problem is those patients that fail the initial standard treatment and do not reach disease control (i.e. complete hematological remission); we need diagnostic tools to identify these 20-50% of patients before start of treatment. These patients with the most aggressive disease probably need a different treatment from the first cycle and not a different treatment after an initial treatment failure.