Hyperleukocytosis is an oncological emergency in pediatric patients with acute leukemia. It has been shown that the risk of mortality increases when neurological/Pulmonary leukostasis develops (
5,
8). Leukapheresis is recommended in leukostasis or when the WBC is elevated, but there is no definite consensus on the management of these patients. It has been suggested that LPH should be performed when the WBC exceeds 400,000 cells/mm
3 (
5). However, other authors suggested that LPH could not be applied to any patient, regardless of the WBC, since it could not be performed in this particular center and no patient loss was experienced, despite the inability to use LPH (
20). Compared with patients who received LPH, the percentage decrease in leukocyte counts was greater among those who received CT (
21). In the present study, the WBC of patients who underwent LPH was > 300,000 cells/mm
3 with one exception. When the patients who did not have LPH were examined, the WBC was > 300,000 cells/mm
3 in only two patients. When both the LPH and non-LPH groups were examined, no death was observed in the first month of follow-up and there were 32 (78.05%) patients in the non-LPH group. In addition, after LPH, the WBC decreased from a mean of 510,000 cells/mm
3 to 65,000 cells/mm
3. This improvement may be due to the prompt availability of platelet transfusion for thrombocytopenia, delayed packed red blood cell transfusion until resolution of HL, early initiation of low-dose cytoreductive CT, and careful management of TLS. Although LPH treatment appears effective and safe, treatment of HL is possible with only hydration support, administration of allopurinol/rasburicase, early initiation of treatment for the disease within the first 24 hours, and close clinical follow-up. LPH may be performed in patients with leukostasis, if it is not possible to start induction CT early (
20).
Increasing age, male gender, and T-cell ALL phenotype are reported to be predictors for LPH (
5,
16,
19,
22). In our study, male gender, and T-cell ALL phenotype were associated with an increased probability of LPH, in keeping with the literature. Seven (77.8%) of the 9 patients were male, and the T ALL rate was 67%. In our study, LDH levels were high in leukemia patients with HL and were significantly higher in the LPH group than in the other group. Elevated circulating LDH levels have been considered a marker of poor prognosis in oncology and have often been attributed to high tumor burden and cancer metabolism. Recent evidence suggests that elevated LDH levels may be independent of tumor burden and may have a negative predictive value, which may be helpful in guiding treatment strategies in immuno-oncology (
23). Taken together, high LDH levels can also be considered a marker for LPH.
Studies have reported conflicting results regarding whether LPH delays the time to CT (
7,
24). Given that the patient is receiving a therapeutic intervention, a prolonged time to CT would normally be expected in patients receiving LPH. Although LPH rapidly reduces the WBC count, it usually needs to be administered several times to achieve an effective reduction in the WBC count. In our study, there was no significant difference in the time to CT between patients who received LPH and those who did not. This may be due to the fact that the patient was awaiting flow cytometry results and concurrent cytoreduction therapy was started as soon as the diagnosis was confirmed.
The larger size of lymphoblasts compared to normal blood cells predisposes patients with HL to develop leukostasis (
16). Hence, it is not surprising that children with acute leukemia and HL have a higher incidence of early adverse events, including death (
25). The clinical symptoms of leukostasis increase the likelihood of requiring LPH (
22). Only one patient who had LPH presented with a sign of leukostasis. This outcome likely reflects that physicians at our institution initiate LPH based directly in response to HL rather than directly in response to clinical scenarios. There were two patients with dyspnea as a symptom of leukostasis, one of whom underwent LPH. The patient who did not undergo LPH required 55 days in the PICU, while the patient who underwent LPH required only seven days in the PICU. The WBC in these two patients was 202,000 cells/mm
3 and 168,000 cells/mm
3, respectively. It should be noted that the patient who did not undergo LPH was an infant and had been diagnosed with AML, which may have contributed to the prolonged PICU stay. In our study, no neurological leukostasis was observed.
Complications related to LPH use have been reported, such as hemodynamic changes, electrolyte irregularities, bleeding due to anticoagulation use, and risks associated with central lines (
14). However, no significant complications were reported in the present study, as in similar previous studies (
13,
26). Lastly, the lack of complications among the studied subgroups of patients needs to be interpreted cautiously given the relatively small number of patients and events.
Among all HL patients, there were no deaths within the first 30 days, while 3 patients died during long-term follow-up in the group that did not receive LPH. Two of these patients died due to refractory disease (one with AML and one with T-cell ALL) and one died due to septic shock (with B-cell ALL). It was noted that 4 patients in the LPH group and 3 patients in the non-LPH group underwent BMT due to relapsed/refractory disease. Of the 7 patients who underwent BMT, all but 1 (diagnosed with B-cell ALL) were diagnosed with AML and T-cell ALL. The life expectancy of patients with T-cell ALL and AML was lower than that of patients with B-cell ALL. Febrile neutropenia is the most common cause of death in patients with leukemia. Although all patients who died were in the non-LPH group, it is not possible to attribute this result to non-LPH because the patient population is small and the factors affecting life expectancy in leukemia patients are multifactorial.
Current studies on the use of LPH in leukemia patients with HL have not resolved the question marks of previous studies, and no clear answer has been found to completely resolve the differences in opinion and practice between centers. Studies suggesting that LPH is not necessary have cited the lack of effect of LPH on early mortality (
17,
27,
28). However, more recent studies have recommended the use of LPH. Zhang et al. emphasized that LPH rapidly eliminates leukocytes and corrects metabolic abnormalities, alleviates symptoms of leukostasis, and is well tolerated (
22). There are reports that LPH eliminates the symptoms of leukostasis, TLS, and DIC, thereby reducing the leukemic cell burden without life-threatening risks (
29,
30). The use of LPH has also been reported to be safe and well tolerated (
18,
31). In one study, although there was no significant difference in survival in the LPH group, it was stated that LPH has a therapeutic role and is a safe and effective option (
32). Because of the lack of consensus in the current studies, it does not seem possible to establish a practice guideline in the near future. All these recent studies show us that although LPH is effective, it is not possible to say clearly that the absence of LPH negatively affects survival rates. In our study, although the number of cases was limited, the use of LPH seems to be safe and at least survival rates were not decreased in patients without LPH. Another important reason for the different results in the studies may be other therapeutic factors such as steroids, CT, hydration, uricolysis/rasburicase used simultaneously with LPH and other genetic factors, biomarkers, pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic individual factors that we do not know.
In the management of patients with HL, prompt and coordinated intervention is required to assess the patient's risk and prevent complications. This study has shown that LPH is a procedure that provides an effective reduction in leukocyte count in patients presenting with acute leukemia with HL and has an acceptable side-effect profile. The effectiveness of LPH treatment is usually temporary. The number of blasts in the peripheral circulation may increase rapidly shortly after the procedure. The standard treatment for patients with acute leukemia with HL is supportive therapy and induction CT (
16). To prevent rebound leukocytes and blasts, cytoreductive therapy, such as the use of hydroxyurea and/or induction CT, should be initiated rapidly (
33).
The limitations of our study are the small cohort size and its retrospective design. In particular, the sample size in the LPH group is small because the retrospective nature of our study allows us to evaluate existing data. In general, LPH was administered to patients with WBC count > 300,000 or leukostasis symptoms, but 3 patients were excluded from these criteria. The fact that treatments such as hydration, steroid/CT, uricolysis/rasburicase were given simultaneously with LPH makes it difficult to evaluate the efficacy of LPH alone. Future prospectively designed studies with larger case groups may give us clearer results regarding the necessity of LPH in patients with HL.
5.1. Conclusions
The optimal management of symptomatic HL is still uncertain, and there are no randomized studies demonstrating one is superior to the other. Therefore, it is recommended that intensive CT should be implemented as quickly as possible in patients, in addition to supportive measures. Our results show no early deaths related to HL among these patients and suggest that LPH may not be necessary to reduce the occurrence of early adverse events in this population.