APL, Information and SupportInspired by Anita’s Journey through Acute Promyelocytic Leukemia

At the 43rd annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, held last month (June) in Chicago, researchers presented findings from trials evaluating the safety and efficacy of new potential front line treatments for cancer. The use of Arsenic Trioxide as part of front line treatment for APL was discussed.

The Arsenic Trioxide related presentation

…The first study revealed that adding arsenic trioxide to standard therapy significantly increased overall survival among adults with newly diagnosed acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL). Arsenic trioxide has been used in traditional Chinese medicine for years, and it is currently prescribed as second-line treatment for patients with APL who do not respond to the standard therapy of combined all—trans retinoic acid and chemotherapy. About 70% of patients taking standard therapy experience a complete response, and 35% to 45% of patients are disease free at 5 years. …

In this randomized phase 3 trial of more than 500 patients, overall survival at 3 years of follow-up was 86% in the arsenic trioxide group vs 77% in the standard treatment group, and event-free survival was 77% and 59%, respectively. Cardiac irregularities and blood-related adverse effects such as low blood counts were not significantly different in the two groups, but infections and headaches were higher in the arsenic trioxide group (43%) than in the standard therapy group (28%).

“Addition of arsenic trioxide is associated with very little additional toxicity, and relapse was very uncommon in patients who received [the drug]: 5 out of 202 patients,” said lead author Bayard Powell, MD, of Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center, in Winston-Salem, NC. “Arsenic trioxide should be incorporated into the therapy of patients with untreated APL,” he concluded.

Other countries, especially China have been using Arsenic in their front line APL treatments for some time. The US seems to be playing catch up on this one. At the same time, it is Arsenic after all (poison) so I can understand that the US has been slow to use Arsenic as an agent for treating new cases of APL.

Sure, Arsenic is poison but then so is water in a high enough dose. Have you ever heard the comment that its the dose that determines whether a compound is a medicine or a poison?

APL Treatments continue to improve, but there is more work to be done

When Anita was initially diagnosed with APL in 2002 her oncologist commented that APL is one of the less deadly types of leukemia. He was right of course but at the same time APL is certainly no walk in the park. I guess you could say that it is one of the best of the worst if that is saying much at all.

Take careful note of the statement that appears in the exerpt from the JAMA article: “35-40% of patients treated with standard therapy are disease free at 5 yrs”. My take on that sentence is that most patients do in fact relapse within a 5 yr period. Of course this is still better than other types of leukemia where many Dr’s will tell you that relapse after initial non-transplant based treatment is a virtual certainty.

My point here is that there is still much to be done in terms of improving the treatment for APL.

Oh — my other point…!! If you were recently diagnosed with APL and you are starting treatment, please ask your Dr. whether it would make sense to include Arsenic in your initial treatment.

Here is the link to the new JAMA article – http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/298/4/391

Sorry – but it looks like you will have to be a JAMA subscriber to see the article. I would be happy to email a copy to you if you email me with that request.

Anita’s Experience with Arsenic Trioxide

This site has a few postings about Anita’s specific experience with her Arsenic treatment. Overall her treatment with Arsenic was uneventful but effective.

In fact, Anita’s Arsenic treatment didn’t cause her to lose her hair or experience any of the nasty side effects that are normally associated with traditional chemotherapy.

I keep dwelling on Anita’s positive experience with Arsenic partly because I remember researching Arsenic for APL when Anita was to start her treatment. Of course most of the articles I found were plenty scary, some talking about sudden death during treatment and other serious problems.

Some of these APLBLOG posts seem to be coming up near the top of many of my test Google searches now – so maybe the “next person” that searches for APL Arsenic etc will see something more positive and practical than I did when I first searched on the subject. I ended up being quite scared for Anita after initially reading about Arsenic.

Arsenic can indeed be dangerous but as doctors have become more skilled at admininstering it (especially including close monitoring of electrolyte levels such as Potassium and Magnesium) the danger has become more managable. Some of the problems you might read about with Arsenic relate to issues that were more common when doctors were less skilled at managing its potential side effects.

(by the way – that picture is what Arsenic looks like in one of its natural forms)

Feedback on this blog post

There has been some interesting feedback on the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society bulletin boards. With respect to the individuals involved we’d like to summarize some of the points.

• Hi Chris,
  Thanks for the information. I too, have been doing a lot of reading about Ars.Tri. I was dx 5-06, rem. 6-06, 2 consol., and started ATRA maint.(90mg daily, 7 days on,7 days off)in 10-06. Originally my oncologist was only going to put me on it for a year. But now he wants me to continue until 10-08. Do you think I should broach the subject of adding Ars.Tri. at this time? I would value your input/opinion.with sincere thanks,
  - Beth
• I was fortunate to be one of the research study participants a little less than 5 years ago. I’m glad to see that Arsenic Trioxide is soon to be rolling out for all to receive as part of the frontline treatment for APL. I think it is as close to a “miracle” drug that there is.
  - mbatdorf
• I can’t offer any specific advice for you. The more I learn about all this the less apt I am to try and suggest much of anything specific to any specific individual.There are just too many variables that I don’t have knowledge or visibility on – even for my wife’s own treatment! I can tell you that I would have plenty of questions about Arsenic if I were in your shoes.

  I guess if you were to get Arsenic now it would be as an additional consolidation therapy as I suspect you are already in a good remission. Have you had a few negative PCR tests since achieving remission?

  There is nothing to suggest that you will certainly relapse although I think the “35-40% remain disease free at 5 yrs” comment should get everyone’s attention. Honestly that number scares me and I have seen plenty of similar numbers in other places over the years.

  Five years ago I remember hearing that Anita had a 70-80% chance of not relapsing in the first 5 yrs, with even less chance of relapse thereafter. She did not receive Arsenic and those were the “numbers” that were quoted for the Retinoic Acid/Chemo route she was offered and accepted in 2002. Arsenic was experimental as front-line treatment at that time so I am not trying to suggest that we should have been offered access to it 5 yrs ago.

  Of course she did relapse (exactly at 5 yrs!!!) and now the relapse stats for treatment that did not include arsenic seem to be reversed at least according to this JAMA article quoted in the original post.

  I also do not regard arsenic, or any drug for that matter as a miracle drug. There are risks with Arsenic and questions remain, like whether it could pre-dispose you to future different types of cancers years in the future.

  So back to my original comment that APL is rare. Why did I mention that? Here’s why…

  I think you are going to run into trouble getting your ONC to do any sort of “custom job” for you – i.e. adding Arsenic later in your treatment.

  Your probably going to get thinking like “Your in remission now – why mess with that?”. A 30 day course of Arsenic that includes much of any hospitlization will probably cost around 50k too (fyi). Your insurance might even balk about paying for it since you are already in remission etc.

  APL is so rate that any specific oncologist you are likely to speak with has treated only a handful of cases over his or her career. Of course there are all kinds of rare cancers that oncologists deal with every day – but the point still holds APL is rare. Oh – and Docs that are experienced with APL and Arsenic are rarer still!

  Ok – so what to do?

  I would try to get a few second opinions – perhaps including an opinion from one of the docs that was involved with the JAMA study.

  Basically I would try to develop a concensus between a few Docs – including some that are very familar with Arsenic in the APL context.

  You don’t want this crap to come back if you can avoid it. In your shoes, I would be interested in anything that might significantly help prevent its return.

  Anita’s auto transplant is going pretty much as planned but it is difficult, painful and not without its own risks. I wish she could have avoided the need for her transplant.

  -Chris

• One has to look more deeply into that JAMA article (I wasn’t willing to buy it, but I believe I saw the study a week or two ago). The event free survival numbers refer to, I think, protocols that used daunarubicin and/or ATRA. Idarubicin (used more commonly now, and a “newer” less heart toxic chemo) has been more effective with APL, and the PETHEMA APL99 protocol (which I was on) had a relapse rate under 1-3% for people who were low-intermediate risk and had achieved remission. I know these data were accurate as of 4 years, and how it has been almost eight years, and I emailed one of the APL “gurus” who has worked with Dr. Miguel Sanz (who ran the PETHEMA study) and he indicated that the numbers, as far as he knows, have persisted — i.e. the relapse rate 8 years later, is still under 1-3% for low to intermediate risk patients. This protocol used Ida+ATRA for induction, and IDA+ATRA, Mitoxantrone+ATRA, and IDA+ATRA for consolidation with two years of Atra/6MP/Methotrexate.

  I just finished maintenance. It is a long road with APL, and you need to be your own advocate. With APL there’s good news and bad news: good news is it is highly treatable and curable; bad news is that there are many ways to treat it, so choosing a course is mind-numbing. I DO think (based on my reading, for I’m not a doc) that therapy using Arsenic (which I did NOT have) is proving to be highly beneficial and efficacious.
  -pen65000

• The JAMA article mentions “35-40% are disease free at 5 years”. This sounds like another way of saying that 60-65% of APL patients relapse within 5 yrs at least when Arsenic is not used as part of initial treatment.I will try to ask Anita’s onc what “disease free” means in this context.Survival would be a different statistic altogether and would be higher.

  Maybe the 70-80% survival at 5 yrs from initial diagnosis could still be correct – it just that many (60-65%?) of those survivors might have relapsed during the 5 yr period, possibly needing more treatments, transplants etc.

  All these stats are tricky.

  -Chris

• quote:

  ---

  Maybe the 70-80% survival at 5 yrs from initial diagnosis could still be correct – it just that many (60-65%?) of those survivors might have relapsed during the 5 yr period, possibly needing more treatments, transplants etc.
  

  ---

  Though I haven’t really read this study to say whether that’s the case here, what you’ve noted is not necessarily an unspoken but a quietly spoken and unfortunate “read between the lines” fact in all AML treatment when discussing survival. Terms like “disease free survival” and “event free survival” and “relapse free survival” are additionally usually contextual, and can change the simple interpretation of statistics.

  I would be exceedingly encouraged by the fact that “event free survival” was so high, however. Especially after earlier concerns about treatment-related mortality and genotoxicity. (Issues that generally figure much more prominently into adoption of treatments here than in some places.)

  (And it reads to me as though the JAMA article is initially citing general statistics first when discussing 5-year disease free rates, and then the new study’s own statistics separately in discussing 3-year rates.)

  I have read a couple of very interesting new abstracts on an ATO and parthenolide combination, and on ATO’s ability to tamp down leukemic stem cells in APL.

  - MichaelM

• I think the LLS should have a good FAQ that explains all of these terms – disease free survival, relapse free survival, event free survival, treatment related mortality, overall survival, etc.
  Looking back to 2002, I believe we were quoted a 5 yr overall survival number of 70-80%. Our doc was not suggesting that there was only a 20-30% chance of relapse. Then again, if we had been told that there was a 60-65% chance that the leukemia would come back I don’t know what we would have done with that information. And yes, these numbers from the JAMA article apply to people that did not receive arsenic as part of their up front treatment.

  When Anita was first diagnosed our first concern was for her to survive (obviously) so we were not thinking about the nuances of how to interpret stats we were quoted.

  It is very hard to decide exactly how much of this information I even want to know when its my own family that is suffering. The question of what to do with any bit of information we are provided – i.e. is it actionable in some way – comes up at every turn.

  Better understanding DFS vs OS does seem important though as it could possibly help some people choose between more or less aggressive treatments up front. Of course more aggressive treatments might promise lesser relapse rates but provide possibly worse OS within a defined period of time (i.e. 5 yrs).

  In retrospect, I think we sort of ended up looking at Anita’s 2002 APL diagnosis through rose colored glasses, not realizing that the relapse rate was as high as it apparently is.

  Would we have done anything different with a better understanding of the survival numbers? Probably not.

  Some of this might speak to the importance of getting multiple opinions and consultations when you are diagnosed. Misunderstandings and partial understandings of relevant facts might tend to get flushed out a litle better when you start talking to multiple experts.

  -Chris

• There are some predictors about relapse, namely the patient’s white count at presentation. If the patient presents with a WBC of over 10,000, the patient is considered “high risk” for relapse. I forget what makes up “low” and “moderate” risk because I fall into the “high” risk category, and that was all I needed to know. In the studies I read (none of which included arsenic in the consolidation phase), all or almost all of the high risk patients relapsed. To counter that risk, my onc put me on an arsenic trioxide protocol. He believes that the arsenic essentially eliminates the high risk category. Additionally, in my protocol the daily 6MP in maintenance is only prescribed to high risk patients.

  My heart really does go out to you. I can tell how much you care about your wife and how hard you are working to help her beat this disease. When Anita was diagnosed the first time, you made the best decisions based on the information you and the medical community had at the time. Don’t second-guess the decisions you made in the past.

  -Diane

• Disease free survival (DFS) generally means just that – the length of survival from the original disease (not secondary) following a specific treatment during which no sign of disease was present. Though there is some wiggle room in defining what “reappearance of disease” means (which should be defined in each study), broadly speaking DFS ends when the disease reappears.Relapse free survival is similar, with the primary end point being relapse of disease and/or time of last follow-up. I’ve often seen it include death from any cause. (If you’re in remission but die in a car wreck, you were still in remission at the time of death.) Sometimes RFS is defined in the same way as DFS.Event free survival generally means the time during which there is no reappearance of disease (relapse), no death resulting from the disease _or_ the specific treatment in that trial, and no significant complications resulting from that specific treatment. As with DFS, the details of what constitutes disease reappearance and “significant” complications is something that should be defined in each trial.

  Some of this is a bit different from cancer to cancer as well, and again you can find variation for any of these from trial to trial, but they’re much more specific than simple OS.
  -MichaelM
  

  Full bulletin board post
  

A lot has happened since my last post regarding Anita’s progress.

To summarize, Anita reached PCR negative status after her two rounds of arsenic based therapy. The PCR negative status was a great milestone for her as it meant that she qualified for a less intense and less risky type of stem cell transplant called an autologous transplant.   An auto transplant allows Anita to to donate her own stem cells, rather than relying receiving stem cells from a sibling or unrelated donor.

With the good result Anita obtained from Arsenic treatment, this set the stage for her to continue on to the stem cell transplant she needs to help prevent the return of her leukemia.

Anita is to receive an autologous transplant at the City of Hope in Duarte, CA. We are fortunate to have access to the City of Hope, especially since some types of insurance coverage won’t always provide access to a specialized cancer treatment facility like COH.

Our insurance coverage is with Kaiser Permanente and they have provided excellent treatment for Anita since her initial diagnosis in late 2001. Through all of Anita’s treatments, including about 150 days of hospitalization in the last 5 years, I never felt that Kaiser did anything “on the cheap.” We also found the Kaiser staff, including Anita’s primary oncologist and the many nurses that have worked with her for the last 5 years to be very dedicated and focused toward her care.

Back to Anita…

Even though Anita reached PCR Negative status after her Arsenic treatment, there were numerous “pre-transplant” tests she had to clear to make sure she was suitable for her treatment. Some of the tests were performed and San Diego and others at the City of Hope.

Anita has been working through the steps to get ready for her transplant for the past few months and she is finally ready – just a few days to go before it “happens.”   We knew the date for the transplant was getting close but we were waiting for a few test results to come in before it could actually be scheduled. This Thursday, Anita’s transplant coordinator nurse called and said the magic words – “it’s on for Monday.”

Basically COH seems to have made a big push to get Anita’s transplant scheduled quickly – to take advantage of the PCR negative result they obtained from her stem cell collection.
The day after the transplant nurse called we packed up Anita’s things and traveled to the City of Hope. Anita will likely be here for between 45 to 60 days with a lengthy series of recurring follow-ups thereafter.
Anita’s will start 6 days of strong chemotherapy tomorrow morning – Monday July 9th. The chemotherapy will work to destroy her existing immune system. After her immune system is destroyed, the stem cells that were gathered about a month ago will be re-infused into her. The re-infused cells will engraft back into Anita’s bones and will grow a new, hopefully healthy, immune system.

When Anita receives her own cells back (that she donated about a month ago) they will be delivered intervenously – just like you would receive blood after an injury (for example). The stem cells are smart – after being re-infused they return back to the interior of her bones and will get to work toward making a new immune system for her.

One of the best ways to keep an eye on a subject that you care about is to use Google Alerts. This is a free service that establishes something called a “persistent search” for web pages with keywords that you specify. Google performs a search for the terms that you specify every day and they email links on any “new hits” they find when they occur (each day).

I maintain a Google-Alert search on several terms – one of which is apl leukemia. If something new comes up with APL, Google emails me an alert with a link to the APL related news article. This is a source of comfort for me as I really care about the subject but being busy with so many things I can’t necessarily research progress on APL every day.

Today, I received an alert for a new drug that is active against relapsed APL – it is called Tamibarotene or “AM-80″. Tamibarotene is already approved for recurrent APL in Japan and US rights to this drug were recently acquired by a company called Innovive. You can read more about Tamibarotene and Innovive here.

Like so many new drugs for APL (and other cancers), tamibarotene is not a magic bullet. It could be an important drug – but probably not a magic bullet – sort of a “another log on the fire” – or “another brick in the wall” toward an overall improved treatment.

I was able to find one clinical study (performed in Japan) where Tamibarotene was used to treat 39 relapsed APL patients that were initially treated with Retinoic Acid and Chemo. About 60% of the relapsed APL patients that were treated with Tamibarotene achieved a complete remission.

Time will tell if Tamibarotene will evolve into a very helpful drug for APL. In the near term, it will likely evolve into an important alternative to arsenic for treatment of APL. Arsenic may continue to be the best (perhaps by far) treatment for relapsed APL- but what if arsenic doesn’t work for you?

What if Arsenic creates life threatening complications for you or your loved one? Arsenic – that’s poison, right?

Arsenic treatment for relapsed APL is very effective but some people just cannot tolerate it. It is rare, but Arsenic can cause serious heart and/or liver complications. What if you can’t tolerate Arsenic? You need an alternative – maybe something like tamibarotine.

When Anita relapsed, I knew she would have to take arsenic to try and get back into remission. I remember being very concerned about whether Anita would be able to tolerate Arsenic. When you read about Arsenic for relapsed APL, you quickly learn that there aren’t any great established alternatives.

It is rare, but some people suffer very dangerous heart complications and some (also rare) suffer very serious and sometimes fatal liver complications. My thought was, what will happen if Anita can’t take arsenic- then what? Luckily, she tolerated it well so this was not a concern.

Still though – what about patients that cannot tolerate arsenic? Drugs like Tamibarotene might help – possibly providing an important alternative that could extend life.

Maybe there will be a few patients that cannot tolerate Arsenic will achieve remission with Tamibarotene. Maybe some of these same patients will then go onto a potentially curative transplant. I think that over time this sort of outcome is likely at least for some APL patients.

Anyhow, reading about Tamibarotene got me thinking about the importance of alternative treatments and drugs – leading to this quick post.

Clinical experience with a new synthetic retinoid, tamibarotene (Am-80) for relapsed or refractory acute promyelocytic leukemia

[Article in Japanese]
Takeuchi M.
Division of Hematology, National Hospital Organization Minami-Okayama Medical Center.

A new synthetic retinoid, Am-80 is expected to overcome all-trans retinoic acid (ATRA) resistance, because of several times more potent differentiation activity than ATRA and sustained plasma level during continuous administration due to a lower affinity for cellular retinoic acid binding protein.

In a preliminary study in Japan, 14 (58%) of 24 acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL) patients who had relapsed from ATRA induced complete remission (CR) achieved a second CR. Of these 14 CR patients, 4 of 6 who underwent allogeneic stem cell transplantation (SCT) are alive, and 4 of 8 patients who received only chemotherapy are alive without relapse for >4 years. Adverse events include xerosis, cheilitis, hyperlipidemia and so on, but these were generally milder than ATRA. In a phase 2 clinical trial, 25 (61%) of 41 patients entered CR.

Among 23 first relapsed patients, 18 (78.3%) patients entered CR, indicating excellent salvage effects for ATRA-relapsed patients. Am-80 may improve disease free survival when used as remission induction and/or maintenance therapy, and it may be effective for relapse from ATRA-induced remission and be curative for patients who receive SCT or intensive post remission chemotherapy.

Leafy on the LLS discussion board asked me to dig up the FLT3 / APL articles that I mentioned earlier. I will find these articles soon and will post links to them.

Meanwhile, MichaelM who is really a star over on the LLS board because of his very strong overall knowledge on AML, had some very insightful remarks on the FLT3 discussion.

Basically in this post, I am trying to provide some context and discussion to help support APL patients in trying to decide how much they want to learn about their disease. I especially want to express the notion that we all need to be careful about expecting our “lay person” knowledge to be very helpful in improving our treatment outcomes.

I am going to hop out on a limb and paste MichaelM’s remarks below as they provide context for my more lengthy post which appears thereafter,

MichaelM’s post-

This is a little complex in your situation.

APL is still an AML, and the presence of FLT3 _juxtamembrane_ mutations is always a negative indicator to some extent. In considering most APL to be one of the three better prognosis AMLs, though, the presence of such a mutation is not necessarily as bad as you might otherwise expect. (I’m intentionally hedging here, for obvious reasons.) You’ll have trouble finding a consensus on what, exactly, the impact is.

If you are sure testing for an FLT3 mutation was done, then they likely performed testing to determine BCR status (BCR1, BCR2, BCR3). Do you know which she showed? Other considerations would be whether this is an M3v (variant) AML or not.
If you’re just looking at a report that noted FLT3 somewhere, you should understand that there is a prognostic difference between the juxtamembrane (length) mutations (ITD – internal tandem duplications, and insertions, which are the ‘bad’ ones) and the codon mutations in the kinase region, which are generally felt to have less or no real significant prognostic value). There’s also a prognostic difference if there is a low ratio of mutant FLT3 vs wild (normal) FLT3, as well as if wild FLT3 is absent. The size of the mutation probably impacts the prognosis as well.

I know I have read of some protocols under study that involve FLT3 inhibitors front-loaded with traditional chemo or arsenic trioxide.

Chris’s comments:

MichaelM has obviously worked very hard to develop a robust understanding of AML. He is way ahead of me on this stuff.

It is perilous trying to summarize and simplify what he said as he understands much more of this than I. I think there is always a danger of trying to explain things in a way that is simpler than they really are.

If I understand his post, I believe the general idea is that you can’t really say much about interpreting the significance of FLT3 without also considering the subtype of APL along with other factors.

The APL subtypes I am aware of, are: short, long and variant. Also, I believe that the BCR1,2,3 values he mentioned equate (I don’t remember how each matches up) respectively to: short, long and variant types.

Anita has the M3v type and of course she relapsed at 5 yrs post first CR. I have seen a few studies have suggested that the M3v type is more difficult to deal with.

MichaelM’s other comment is that you cannot interpret the significance of FLT3 very well without knowing the concentration at which it was detected. I like how he said “FLT3 written somewhere on the report.”

I think all of this is very very interesting and I want learn all I can about it. Learning the details is interesting, but I still think it is very important to consider if any of this information can impact your treatment or help you in much of any way.

My question is, how can you use this information to help yourself (or others)? I think it can help a little bit but you need to carefully ponder its limitations.

Another point, is that hard data like “FLT3” is important, but is difficult to apply at least in some respects to an individual’s specific treatment needs. For example, if the individual had an odd liver toxicity issue with certain types of drugs, that could trump all kinds of ideas about making incremental adjustments to how APL should be treated.

I think Anita’s Dr carefully consider’s Anita’s overall status along with her APL treatment needs. Of course that sounds like common sense, but us lay people tend to take a narrower view of what we read in scientific articles about APL. I think we can end up missing the “overall approach” that a good Dr takes toward treating their patients.

What I am suggesting here is that it can take a great deal of experience and judgement to relate what you read in this or that article to a patient’s individual needs. Great Dr’s dedicate spend their entire careers developing the judgment and experience to manage tough diseases like APL.

Michael’s post illustrates is that as you dive deeper into the whole subject of APL, you will find that it drives rapidly into other cross connected areas of knowledge. What is a codon? What is a flow cytometry result? What are all these abbreviations? I think you might see what I am saying here. How far do us lay people really want to go with all this learning and can it really help our loved ones?

So much of this is not really in our control and an individual patient in a typical healthcare setting is not a science project. Oncs tend to be pretty conservative and will provide treatment along established lines that have been developed through phased studies.

MichaelM’s comment that there are possibly some trial studies with FLT3 inhibitors out there is of interest. Trial studies are whole new subject though though. See if you have to go across the country to even participate in many of them!

I get frustrated at times, where I look back and see great results from APL treatments that are standard now, like the blended use of AsO3 and ATRA for initial treatment. Those treatments were not standard 5 yrs ago and Anita did not receive them. Relapse seems to be considerably less likely when these blended treatments are used.

Would she have relapsed if she had received the newer treatment that was more experimental in 2002? We will never know. Think of all the thousands of what-if’s in life. If the slow but more sure approach of phased studies had not been carefully used for so many years would APL treatment had ever advanced to where it even was in 2002?

Moving on here, and back to your original FLT3 question, maybe you could somehow thoroughly anonomize your APL friend’s pathology report that mentioned FLT3. After it is carefully anonomized, I could post a scan of it over on www.aplblog.org and perhaps a few APL’rs could try to provide a few comments.

I am not a Dr or an expert on APL but I do think that there is a need for this kind of more technical discussion among lay people. There is such a huge canyon between the non-expert articles that I read regarding APL and stuff that is easier to understand.

Our Dr’s are just too busy to engage in very much this type of more technical discussion with lay people too so maybe we could just talk a bit about it on our own.

I also think it would likely drive most Dr’s crazy trying to talk all my super wide ranging questions through with me so that is probably the case for other caregivers and APL patients as well.

Chris
www.aplblog.org

Anita is feeling pretty well today and her white blood cell count has improved slightly. She may be able to leave the hospital early this week, allowing her to continue her treatment as an outpatient.

She is walking several times per day around the hospital, usually for 30 minutes or more each time. I am always amazed that I don’t see more patients trying to walk in the hospital – keeping active seems to help Anita’s spirits and it just isn’t good to spend too much time in bed.

If you know someone in the hospital that is able to walk, and you would like to help them, try to encourage them to walk – and take the time to walk with them.

Anita continues to tolerate her arsenic treatment well. I am thankful that she has had minimal side effects so far. The only complaint so far is that it is difficult for her system to clear all the fluids they infuse into her each day, she has gained a small amount of water weight as a result. This is really more of an annoyance than any sort of problem and it is a common side effect for Arsenic and heavy IV based therapy in general.

* Anita’s arsenic treatment, a few thoughts

One point on the arsenic and the rest of Anita’s infused therapy – we have found it helpful to ask the hospital to try and give her medications at roughly the same time each day. This seems like a minor thing but setting up a routine at least help create an environment that you can work to get used to.

The “regular times” issue has come up mainly with Potassium infusions. Ideally she receives one Potassium infusion in the morning then another in the mid afternoon before her Arsenic. A few times, the morning Potassium dose was delivered late, forcing her to receive two Potassium doses just before the Arsenic – all in one continuous and large infusion.

Basically it is hard on Anita to have so much fluid pushed through her system in such a short time. When the infusions are bunched up all together at the same time, she seems to feel worse and take on water weight more quickly.

I plan to describe the routine for Anita’s outpatient arsenic treatment in a future article. Anita’s arsenic regimen is standard for APL, but I think anyone that is due to receive arsenic will appreciate at least one patient’s detailed accounting of what it is like to receive this unusual drug.

* Anita’s upcoming stem cell transplant

Some my earlier posts talk about the stem cell transplant that Anita is to receive after her Arsenic treatment is complete. She will be receiving her transplant at the City of Hope in Duarte, California, which is about 140 miles away from our home. It isn’t uncommon to have to travel for a stem cell transplant – there are a limited number of large treatment centers for marrow transplantation and the City of Hope is the 3rd largest transplant facility in the world.

Anita has 8 siblings and I expect several of them to be tested this week for donation compatibility with Anita. My understanding is that each sibling has approximately a 25% of being a perfect match for Anita. There are a few factors in play that could change this, but I believe the current plan is for Anita to have an Autologous transplant. The sibling tests which would be used if an Allogenic transplant is needed, are hopefully just part of a backup plan at this point, in case an Autologous transplant turns out to not be the best course for Anita.

Transplants are by no means routine or very safe, but they offer a second chance at life for many.

Here are a few stem cell transplant links from the City of Hope website,

History of Stem Cell Transplants

A few success stories from City of Hope’s transplant program – Remember the Anissa Ayala story from 1991?

I am doing what I can to get ready for Anita’s stem cell transplant. So far, much of my effort has been toward exaustively cleaning our house. When Anita comes home after her SCT, it is important that the house be as clean as possible. With two dogs and a busy life, our house has a ways to go until it means the cleanliness guidelines recommended by the NMDP (National Marrow Donation Program).

It will be great for Anita to be home, but I also know it will be difficult because of all the things she will want to do, but shouldn’t, because of her condition. Anita was trying to explain to me today that she wants to help clean the house when she gets home and that it will be fine “with her mask on.” Oh well, it will be tough to change her mind so I am trying to make sure everything is clean before she gets here.

I want to thank you for making this site on APL survivors.. I’m one of them- they call me the miracle mann and million dollar man. I was hit with APL in April of 2004. I relapsed in Sept 2005 and in CR since then. I want to let anyone that wants to talk about there story or to say hi, I would love that. I went through the ringer at first. I was at Stanford hospital and had a bad reaction to the chemo and was put in a coma for 15 days. While in the hospital a total of 89 days and had a mild stroke -double bleeding ulser and blood clot in my leg all within a month, I’m here to tell the story. More to come LIVESTRONG and WE WILL ALL GET THROUGH THIS.!!!!

Hope to hear fro some more survivors and GOD BLESS

PAULY

Hi Chris,
I’m so sorry to hear about your wife’s relapse, but I’m proud to stand here with you in solidarity.My dad was diagnosed with APL in March of 2004, and through all my research in that frantic time, I was comforted by the fact that APL was unique for its very low relapse rate. So we were shocked when he relapsed nearly 2 years to the day in March 2006.

My dad’s relapse was more complicated than most because leukemia cells were also found in his central nervous system. So in addition to the usual protocol of arsenic, he received cranial radiation as well as intrathecal methotrexate injected into a port implanted in his head (I know, doesn’t that sound gruesome?). But my dad was a hero and his treatment, thankfully, was successful in eradicating the cancer. He achieved molecular remission in April. He was found to be PCR negative for the PML/RAR-alpha transmutation as well (You might already know that this is really important for APL, so be sure your wife gets PCR testing after she acheives remission! There are some really good explanations about how this test works in other areas of this forum)

I remember the bone marrow transplant consultation that I accompanied him to. It was really scary to learn about the long treatment process and the even longer recovery time– allogeneic was a little more daunting then autologous. And since all my dad’s siblings are in Taiwan, the allogeneic situtation would have had to be even more complicated by international travel. I referenced to the doctor a few papers about relapsed APL that I had found, and I’ll post the links here!:
http://www.jco.org/cgi/content/abstract/23/1/120
http://www.nature.com/bmt/journal/v28/n3/full/1703119a.html
http://www.bloodjournal.org/cgi/content/full/90/3/1321

The general consensus in the literature is that PCR negative APL patients have really good outcomes with an autologous stem cell transplant, while patients who convert to PCR positive should elect for the allogeneic route.

My dad’s BMT doctor initially recommended the allogeneic, but after a few days and conferring with her colleagues, they agreed to go autologous instead. So, my dad received his autologous transplant on July 19. His story was complicated by severe neurological setbacks as a result of the intrathecal methotrexate, but that’s a WHOLE other ballgame (neurologists, neuropsychologists, MRIs) that I might tell in another post. Aside from these difficulties, my dad went through his auto SCT with flying colors– he was in the hospital for exactly 30 days and he’s currently on no medication.

Most importantly, today, he’s recovered (miraculously!) from his neurological condition, and his last blood test showed his counts in the normal ranges post stem-cell transplant! We had a scare this week because his doctor had told us his PCR was “weakly positive,” and so we’re still praying that it’s a false positive since his bloodwork, energy level, well-being are so awesome.

I know your wife will come through like my dad did. I’m so sorry that you guys are back on this roller coaster, but, as Tex said, you’ve done it before and you’ll do it again. Thank you so much for your efforts in putting together the APL blog. Information is so powerful! An avid Googler myself, I really appreciate that. Please let me know if there’s anything I might help with, and I’d be honored to contribute.

Hi Chris,It sounds like Anita and I were originally diagnosed with APL around the same time. For me, it was September 2001. I had ara-c, daunorubicin and atra, and had an induction and 2 consolodations, followed up by atra maintenance for 2 years.

After 26 months in remission, I found a small, but very dark, bruise on my outter thigh and just knew it was a leukemia bruise. The next day I had blood work and my wbc had dropped to 1.8. My counts from the blood test 3 weeks prior were completely normal. I then had a bmb to confirm and my doctors were certainly surprised that I had relapsed after 2 years.

I was admitted and the same induction was started that I originally had in 2001. Unfortunately, this time it didn’t work. Next they tried arsenic (was not available here in Canada at the time, but dr got special approval for me and ordered it in from South Carolina). I received it everyday for 28 days (2 hour IV per day) as an outpatient and a week later the bmb showed complete molecular remission. I did not have a sibling match, so they decided to do an auto-bmt. I had the harvest and then 2 weeks later started the chemo for the auto-bmt. I received my cells back on June 14, 2004.

I have great faith in the arsenic after my experience with it. I have met another lady on these boards who relapsed after 3 1/2 years in remission and then received arsenic as well and acheived a second complete molecular remission.

Best wishes to you both, LisaP.

My wife, Anita, was diagnosed with APL in late 2001. She received ATRA and chemotherapy and was put into CR after her induction therapy. She underwent at least two cycles of consolidation therapy that was difficult but she made it through.

I believe it was about June of 2002 that the PCR test from her BMB showed her to be in molecular remission.