Genomic Profiling of a Randomized Trial of Interferon-α versus Hydroxyurea in MPN Reveals Mutation-Specific Responses

Although somatic mutations influence the pathogenesis, phenotype, and outcome of myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs), little is known about their impact on molecular response to cytoreductive treatment. We performed targeted next-generation sequencing (NGS) on 202 pretreatment samples obtained from patients with MPN enrolled in the DALIAH trial (A Study of Low Dose Interferon Alpha Versus Hydroxyurea in Treatment of Chronic Myeloid Neoplasms; #NCT01387763), a randomized controlled phase 3 clinical trial, and 135 samples obtained after 24 months of therapy with recombinant interferon-alpha (IFNα) or hydroxyurea. The primary aim was to evaluate the association between complete clinicohematologic response (CHR) at 24 months and molecular response through sequential assessment of 120 genes using NGS. Among JAK2-mutated patients treated with IFNα, those with CHR had a greater reduction in the JAK2 variant allele frequency (median, 0.29 to 0.07; P < .0001) compared with those not achieving CHR (median, 0.27 to 0.14; P < .0001). In contrast, the CALR variant allele frequency did not significantly decline in those achieving CHR or in those not achieving CHR. Treatment-emergent mutations in DNMT3A were observed more commonly in patients treated with IFNα compared with hydroxyurea (P = .04). Furthermore, treatment-emergent DNMT3A mutations were significantly enriched in IFNα–treated patients not attaining CHR (P = .02). A mutation in TET2, DNMT3A, or ASXL1 was significantly associated with prior stroke (age-adjusted odds ratio, 5.29; 95% confidence interval, 1.59-17.54; P = .007), as was a mutation in TET2 alone (age-adjusted odds ratio, 3.03; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-9.01; P = .044). At 24 months, we found mutation-specific response patterns to IFNα: (1) JAK2- and CALR-mutated MPN exhibited distinct molecular responses; and (2) DNMT3A-mutated clones/subclones emerged on treatment

Secondary cytogenetic abnormalities in core-binding factor AML harboring inv(16) vs t(8;21)

Patients with core-binding factor (CBF) acute myeloid leukemia (AML), caused by either t(8; 21)(q22;q22) or inv(16)(p13q22)/t(16;16)(p13;q22), have higher complete remission rates and longer survival than patients with other subtypes of AML. However, similar to 40% of patients relapse, and the literature suggests that patients with inv(16) fare differently from those with t(8;21). We retrospectively analyzed 537 patients with CBF-AML, focusing on additional cytogenetic aberrations to examine their impact on clinical outcomes. Trisomies of chromosomes 8, 21, or 22 were significantly more common in patients with inv(16)/t(16;16): 16% vs 7%, 6% vs 0%, and 17% vs 0%, respectively. In contrast, del(9q) and loss of a sex chromosome were more frequent in patients with t(8;21): 15% vs 0.4% for del(9q), 37% vs 0% for loss of X in females, and 44% vs 5% for loss of Y in males. Hyperdiploidy was more frequent in patients with inv(16) (25% vs 9%, whereas hypodiploidy was more frequent in patients with t(8;21) (37% vs 3%. In multivariable analyses (adjusted for age, white blood counts at diagnosis, and KIT mutation status), trisomy 8 was associated with improved overall survival (OS) in inv(16), whereas the presence of other chromosomal abnormalities (not trisomy 8) was associated with decreased OS. In patients with t(8;21), hypodiploidy was associated with improved disease-free survival; hyperdiploidy and del(9q) were associated with improved OS. KIT mutation (either positive or not tested, compared with negative) conferred poor prognoses in univariate analysis only in patients with t(8;21)

Core-binding factor acute myeloid leukemia with t(8;21) Risk factors and a novel scoring system (I-CBFit)

Background: Although the prognosis of core-binding factor (CBF) acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is better than other subtypes of AML, 30% of patients still relapse and may require allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (alloHCT). However, there is no validated widely accepted scoring system to predict patient subsets with higher risk of relapse. Methods: Eleven centers in the US and Europe evaluated 247 patients with t(8;21) (q22;q22). Results: Complete remission (CR) rate was high (92.7%), yet relapse occurred in 27.1% of patients. A total of 24.7% of patients received alloHCT. The median diseasefree (DFS) and overall (OS) survival were 20.8 and 31.2 months, respectively. Age, KIT D816V mutated (11.3%) or nontested (36.4%) compared with KIT D816V wild type (52.5%), high white blood cell counts (WBC), and pseudodiploidy compared with hyper- or hypodiploidy were included in a scoring system (named I-CBFit). DFS rate at 2 years was 76% for patients with a low-risk I-CBFit score compared with 36% for those with a high-risk I-CBFit score (P <0.0001). Low- vs high-risk OS at 2 years was 89% vs 51% (P <0.0001). Conclusions: I-CBFit composed of readily available risk factors can be useful to tailor the therapy of patients, especially for whom alloHCT is not need in CR1 (ie, patients with a low-risk score)

Core-binding factor acute myeloid leukemia with t(8;21): Risk factors and a novel scoring system (I-CBFit).

BackgroundAlthough the prognosis of core-binding factor (CBF) acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is better than other subtypes of AML, 30% of patients still relapse and may require allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (alloHCT). However, there is no validated widely accepted scoring system to predict patient subsets with higher risk of relapse.MethodsEleven centers in the US and Europe evaluated 247 patients with t(8;21)(q22;q22).ResultsComplete remission (CR) rate was high (92.7%), yet relapse occurred in 27.1% of patients. A total of 24.7% of patients received alloHCT. The median disease-free (DFS) and overall (OS) survival were 20.8 and 31.2 months, respectively. Age, KIT D816V mutated (11.3%) or nontested (36.4%) compared with KIT D816V wild type (52.5%), high white blood cell counts (WBC), and pseudodiploidy compared with hyper- or hypodiploidy were included in a scoring system (named I-CBFit). DFS rate at 2 years was 76% for patients with a low-risk I-CBFit score compared with 36% for those with a high-risk I-CBFit score (P &lt; 0.0001). Low- vs high-risk OS at 2 years was 89% vs 51% (P &lt; 0.0001).ConclusionsI-CBFit composed of readily available risk factors can be useful to tailor the therapy of patients, especially for whom alloHCT is not need in CR1 (ie, patients with a low-risk I-CBFit score)