The 2010 and 2017 editions of the European LeukemiaNet (ELN) recommendations for diagnosis and management of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in adults are widely recognized among physicians and investigators. There have been major advances in our understanding of AML, including new knowledge about the molecular pathogenesis of AML, leading to an update of the disease classification, technological progress in genomic diagnostics and assessment of measurable residual disease, and the successful development of new therapeutic agents, such as FLT3, IDH1, IDH2, and BCL2 inhibitors. These advances have prompted this update that includes a revised ELN genetic risk classification, revised response criteria, and treatment recommendations.

The classification of myeloid neoplasms and acute leukemias was last updated in 2016 within a collaboration between the World Health Organization (WHO), the Society for Hematopathology, and the European Association for Haematopathology. This collaboration was primarily based on input from a clinical advisory committees (CACs) composed of pathologists, hematologists, oncologists, geneticists, and bioinformaticians from around the world. The recent advances in our understanding of the biology of hematologic malignancies, the experience with the use of the 2016 WHO classification in clinical practice, and the results of clinical trials have indicated the need for further revising and updating the classification. As a continuation of this CAC-based process, the authors, a group with expertise in the clinical, pathologic, and genetic aspects of these disorders, developed the International Consensus Classification (ICC) of myeloid neoplasms and acute leukemias. Using a multiparameter approach, the main objective of the consensus process was the definition of real disease entities, including the introduction of new entities and refined criteria for existing diagnostic categories, based on accumulated data. The ICC is aimed at facilitating diagnosis and prognostication of these neoplasms, improving treatment of affected patients, and allowing the design of innovative clinical trials.

Measurable residual disease (MRD) is an important biomarker in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) that is used for prognostic, predictive, monitoring, and efficacy-response assessments. The European LeukemiaNet (ELN) MRD Working Party evaluated standardization and harmonization of MRD in an ongoing manner and has updated the 2018 ELN MRD recommendations based on significant developments in the field. New and revised recommendations were established during in-person and online meetings, and a 2-stage Delphi poll was conducted to optimize consensus. All recommendations are graded by levels of evidence and agreement. Major changes include technical specifications for next-generation sequencing-based MRD testing and integrative assessments of MRD irrespective of technology. Other topics include use of MRD as a prognostic and surrogate end point for drug testing; selection of the technique, material, and appropriate time points for MRD assessment; and clinical implications of MRD assessment. In addition to technical recommendations for flow- and molecular-MRD analysis, we provide MRD thresholds and define MRD response, and detail how MRD results should be reported and combined if several techniques are used. MRD assessment in AML is complex and clinically relevant, and standardized approaches to application, interpretation, technical conduct, and reporting are of critical importance.

The European LeukemiaNet (ELN) genetic risk classifications were developed based on data from younger adults receiving intensive chemotherapy. Emerging analyses from patients receiving less-intensive therapies prompted a proposal for an ELN genetic risk classification specifically for this patient population.

Measurable residual disease (MRD) monitoring has become a critical component in the management of acute myeloid leukemia (AML), to inform prognosis, guide therapy, and serve as a key end point in clinical trials. The 2025 update of the MRD guideline provides a comprehensive and refined framework for MRD assessment, aligned with the European LeukemiaNet (ELN) 2022 genetic risk classification. Developed by members of the ELN AML MRD Working Party, the guidelines incorporate expert consensus determined through a 2-stage Delphi round. They address the clinical implementation of MRD methodologies, technical considerations, integration into clinical trials, and future directions. Importantly, MRD recommendations are tailored to individual prognostic and genetic subgroups. A new qualitative MRD response category, designated as optimal, warning, or high risk of treatment failure, has been introduced to facilitate contextual interpretation of the MRD burden and its clinical relevance. Notably, ultrahigh-sensitivity next-generation sequencing–based MRD assessment is now recommended for FLT3 internal tandem duplication–mutated AML after intensive chemotherapy and before allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation. A total of 56 recommendations were formulated, with 53 achieving a high level of consensus (≥90%). These updated guidelines represent a major step forward toward harmonizing MRD assessments in AML and enhancing its clinical utility across diverse treatment settings.

Compared with World Health Organization-defined acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) not otherwise specified, patients with AML with myelodysplasia-related changes (AML-MRC) are generally older and more likely to have poor-risk cytogenetics, leading to poor response and prognosis. More than one-half of all older (≥65 years) patients in the phase 3 AZA-AML-001 trial had newly diagnosed AML-MRC. We compared clinical outcomes for patients with AML-MRC treated with azacitidine or conventional care regimens (CCR; induction chemotherapy, low-dose cytarabine, or supportive care only) overall and within patient subgroups defined by cytogenetic risk (intermediate or poor) and age (65–74 years or ≥75 years). The same analyses were used to compare azacitidine with low-dose cytarabine in patients who had been preselected to low-dose cytarabine before they were randomized to receive azacitidine or CCR (ie, low-dose cytarabine). Median overall survival was significantly prolonged with azacitidine (n = 129) versus CCR (n = 133): 8.9 versus 4.9 months (hazard ratio 0.74, [95%CI 0.57, 0.97]). Among patients with intermediate-risk cytogenetics, median overall survival with azacitidine was 16.4 months, and with CCR was 8.9 months (hazard ratio 0.73 [95%CI 0.48, 1.10]). Median overall survival was significantly improved for patients ages 65–74 years treated with azacitidine compared with those who received CCR (14.2 versus 7.3 months, respectively; hazard ratio 0.64 [95%CI 0.42, 0.97]). Within the subgroup of patients preselected to low-dose cytarabine before randomization, median overall survival with azacitidine was 9.5 months versus 4.6 months with low-dose cytarabine (hazard ratio 0.77 [95%CI 0.55, 1.09]). Within the low-dose cytarabine preselection group, patients with intermediate-risk cytogenetics who received azacitidine had a median overall survival of 14.1 months versus 6.4 months with low-dose cytarabine, and patients aged 65–74 years had median survival of 14.9 months versus 5.2 months, respectively. Overall response rates were similar with azacitidine and CCR (24.8% and 17.3%, respectively), but higher with azacitidine versus low-dose cytarabine (27.2% and 13.9%). Adverse events were generally comparable between the treatment arms. Azacitidine may be the preferred treatment for patients with AML-MRC who are not candidates for intensive chemotherapy, particularly patients ages 65–74 years and those with intermediate-risk cytogenetics. This study was registered at clinicalTrials.gov on February 16, 2010 ( NCT01074047 ).