Re-induction versus salvage for D14-resiudal acute myeloid leukemia: A retrospective multi-center study

Avraham Frisch, Shlomzion Aumann, Tsila Zuckerman, Ronit Leiba, Noa Gross Even-Zohar, Moshe E. Gatt, Vladimir Vainstein, Adir Shaulov, Alexander Gural, Eran Zimran, Yaniv Zohar, Yishai Ofran, Boaz Nachmias*

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

1 Scopus citations


Remission assessment in acute myeloid leukemia has evolved over the recent years with the advent of molecular and flow-based minimal residual disease determination. Nonetheless, early time point such as day 5 and day 14 (D14), still have prognostic and therapeutic implications. D14 refractory disease is regarded as a poor prognostic factor, however the therapeutic intervention is still under debate, with evidence suggesting a successful re-induction might offer similar long-term outcome as D14 aplasia. Others advocate the use of more intensive salvage protocols as a mean to overcome the negative prognostic effect. In the current study, we compare outcome of D14 refractory AML patients treated with either re-induction or salvage protocol. More importantly, we identify response characteristics that might suggest which patients will benefit from re-induction approach. Accurate identification of chemotherapy refractory patients might allow the early incorporation of non-chemotherapy based protocols in the future.

Original languageAmerican English
Article number106902
JournalLeukemia Research
StatePublished - Aug 2022

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
© 2022 Elsevier Ltd


  • Acute myeloid leukemia
  • D14


Dive into the research topics of 'Re-induction versus salvage for D14-resiudal acute myeloid leukemia: A retrospective multi-center study'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this