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)

U2AF1 pathogenic variants in myeloid neoplasms and precursor states: distribution of co-mutations and prognostic heterogeneity

Abstract We have previously recognized the genotypic and prognostic heterogeneity of U2AF1 mutations (MT) in myelofibrosis (MF) and myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS). In the current study, we considered 179 U2AF1-mutated patients with clonal cytopenia of undetermined significance (CCUS; n = 22), MDS (n = 108), MDS/acute myeloid leukemia (AML; n = 18) and AML (n = 31). U2AF1 variants included S34 (60%), Q157 (35%), and others (5%): corresponding mutational frequencies were 45%, 55%, and 0% in CCUS; 57%, 39%, and 4% in MDS; 61%, 33%, and 6% in MDS/AML; and 55%, 35% and 10% in AML (P = 0.17, 0.36 and 0.09), respectively. Concurrent mutations included ASXL1 (37%), BCOR (19%), RUNX1 (14%), TET2 (15%), DNMT3A (10%), NRAS/KRAS (8%), TP53 (8%), JAK2 (5.5%) and SETBP1 (5%). The two most frequent U2AF1 MT were S34F (n = 97) and Q157P (n = 46); concurrent MT were more likely to be seen with the latter (91% vs 74%; P = 0.01) and abnormal karyotype with the former (70% vs 62%; P = 0.05). U2AF1 S34F MT clustered with BCOR (P = 0.04) and Q157P MT with ASXL1 (P = 0.01) and TP53 (P = 0.03). The median overall survival (OS) in months was significantly worse in AML (14.2) vs MDS/AML (27.3) vs MDS (33.7; P = 0.001); the latter had similar OS with CCUS (30.0). In morphologically high-risk disease (n = 49), defined by ≥10% blood or bone marrow blasts (i.e., AML or MDS/AML), median OS was 14.2 with Q157P vs 37.1 months in the presence of S34F (P = 0.008); transplant-adjusted multivariable analysis confirmed the detrimental impact of Q157P (P = 0.01) on survival and also identified JAK2 MT as an additional risk factor (P = 0.02). OS was favorably affected by allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HR: 0.16, 95% CI; 0.04-0.61, P = 0.007). The current study defines the prevalence and co-mutational profiles of U2AF1 pathogenic variants in AML, MDS/AML, MDS, and CCUS, and suggests prognostic heterogeneity in patients with ≥10% blasts

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)

Core-binding factor acute myeloid leukemia with inv(16): Older age and high white blood cell count are risk factors for treatment failure

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/166221/1/ijlh13338.pdfhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/166221/2/ijlh13338_am.pd