Search

Simple Summary: Risk classifications in AML models modify definition criteria over time according to the advances in the knowledge of the molecular pathology of the disease. These evolving criteria impact the therapeutic strategy for individual patients. In this study, we aimed to analyze the evolutionary behavior of risk-classification models in a consecutive cohort of unbiased patients. Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is a heterogeneous disease classified into three risk categories (favorable, intermediate and adverse) with significant differences in outcomes. Definitions of risk categories evolve overtime, incorporating advances in molecular knowledge of AML. In this study, we analyzed the impacts of evolving risk classifications in 130 consecutive AML patients in a single-center real-life experience. Complete cytogenetic and molecular data were collected using conventional qPCR and targeted Next Generation Sequencing (NGS). Five-year OS probabilities were consistent among all classification models (roughly 50–72%, 26–32% and 16–20% for favorable, intermediate and adverse risk groups, respectively). In the same way, the medians of survival months and prediction power were similar in all models. In each update, around 20% of patients were re-classified. The adverse category consistently increased over time (31% in MRC, 34% in ELN2010, 50% in ELN2017), reaching up to 56% in the recent ELN2022. Noteworthily, in multivariate models, only age and the presence of TP53 mutations remained statistically significant. With updates in risk-classification models, the percentage of patients assigned to the adverse group is increasing, and so will the indications for allogeneic stem cell transplantation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ObjectiveDiagnosis classification and risk stratification are crucial in the prognosis prediction and treatment selection of acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Here, we used a database of 536 AML patients to compare the 4th and 5th WHO classifications and the 2017 and 2022 versions of ELN guidance.MethodsAML patients were classified according to the 4th and 5th WHO classifications, as well as the 2017 and 2022 versions of the European LeukemiaNet (ELN) guidance. Kaplan–Meier curves with log-rank tests were used for survival analysis.ResultsThe biggest change was that 25 (5.2%), 8 (1.6%), and 1 (0.2%) patients in the AML, not otherwise specified (NOS) group according to the 4th WHO classification, were re-classified into the AML-MR (myelodysplasia-related), KMT2A rearrangement, and NUP98 rearrangement subgroups based on the 5th WHO classification. Referring to the ELN guidance, 16 patients in the favorable group, six patients in the adverse group, and 13 patients in the intermediate group based on the 2017 ELN guidance were re-classified to the intermediate and adverse groups based on the 2022 ELN guidance. Regrettably, the Kaplan–Meier curves showed that the survival of intermediate and adverse groups could not be distinguished well according to either the 2017 or 2022 ELN guidance. To this end, we constructed a risk model for Chinese AML patients, in which the clinical information (age and gender), gene mutations (NPM1, RUNX1, SH2B3, and TP53), and fusions (CBFB::MYH11 and RUNX1::RUNX1T1) were included, and our model could help divide the patients into favorable, intermediate, and adverse groups.ConclusionThese results affirmed the clinical value of both WHO and ELN, but a more suitable prognosis model should be established in Chinese cohorts, such as the models we proposed.

A reduction in BCR-ABL1/ABL1IS transcript levels to BCR-ABL1 thresholds in predicting treatment outcomes for 184 subjects diagnosed with CML and treated with standard-dose imatinib mesylate (IM). With a median follow-up of 61 months, patients with concordant BCR-ABL1/ABL1IS transcripts below the defined thresholds (10% at 3 months and 1% at 6 months) displayed significantly superior rates of event-free survival (86.1% vs. 26.6%) and deep molecular response (≥ MR4; 71.5% vs. 16.1%) compared to individuals with BCR-ABL1/ABL1IS levels above these defined thresholds. We then analyzed the outcomes of subjects displaying discordant molecular transcripts at 3- and 6-month time points. Among these patients, those with BCR-ABL1/ABL1IS values >10% at 3 months but BCR-ABL1/ABL1IS 1% at 6 months (event-free survival 68.2% vs. 32.7%; p < 0.001). Likewise, subjects with BCR-ABL1/ABL1IS at 3 months >10% but 4 compared to patients with BCR-ABL1/ABL1IS 1% at 6 months (75% vs. 18.2%; p < 0.001). Finally, lower BCR-ABL1/GUSIS transcripts at diagnosis were associated with BCR-ABL1/ABL1IS values p < 0.001). Our data suggest that when assessing early molecular responses to therapy, the 6-month BCR-ABL1/ABL1IS level displays a superior prognostic value compared to the 3-month measurement in patients with discordant oncogenic transcripts at these two pivotal time points.

Objective: Diagnosis classification and risk stratification are crucial in the prognosis prediction and treatment selection of acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Here, we used a database of 536 AML patients to compare the 4th and 5th WHO classifications and the 2017 and 2022 versions of ELN guidance., Methods: AML patients were classified according to the 4th and 5th WHO classifications, as well as the 2017 and 2022 versions of the European LeukemiaNet (ELN) guidance. Kaplan-Meier curves with log-rank tests were used for survival analysis., Results: The biggest change was that 25 (5.2%), 8 (1.6%), and 1 (0.2%) patients in the AML, not otherwise specified (NOS) group according to the 4th WHO classification, were re-classified into the AML-MR (myelodysplasia-related), KMT2A rearrangement, and NUP98 rearrangement subgroups based on the 5th WHO classification. Referring to the ELN guidance, 16 patients in the favorable group, six patients in the adverse group, and 13 patients in the intermediate group based on the 2017 ELN guidance were re-classified to the intermediate and adverse groups based on the 2022 ELN guidance. Regrettably, the Kaplan-Meier curves showed that the survival of intermediate and adverse groups could not be distinguished well according to either the 2017 or 2022 ELN guidance. To this end, we constructed a risk model for Chinese AML patients, in which the clinical information (age and gender), gene mutations ( NPM1, RUNX1, SH2B3 , and TP53 ), and fusions (CBFB::MYH11 and RUNX1::RUNX1T1) were included, and our model could help divide the patients into favorable, intermediate, and adverse groups., Conclusion: These results affirmed the clinical value of both WHO and ELN, but a more suitable prognosis model should be established in Chinese cohorts, such as the models we proposed., Competing Interests: BX, GL, and HX were employed by Shanghai Yuanqi Biomedical Technology Co., Ltd. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Wang, Wang, Wei, Zhao, Xin, Li, Zhao, Wu, Luo, Zhao, Chen, Liu, Zhang, Wang, Wang, Wang, Xiong and He.)

A reduction in BCR-ABL1/ABL1IS transcript levels to <10% after 3 months or <1% after 6 months of tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy are associated with superior clinical outcomes in chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) patients. In this study, we investigated the reliability of multiple BCR-ABL1 thresholds in predicting treatment outcomes for 184 subjects diagnosed with CML and treated with standard-dose imatinib mesylate (IM). With a median follow-up of 61 months, patients with concordant BCR-ABL1/ABL1IS transcripts below the defined thresholds (10% at 3 months and 1% at 6 months) displayed significantly superior rates of event-free survival (86.1% vs. 26.6%) and deep molecular response (≥ MR4; 71.5% vs. 16.1%) compared to individuals with BCR-ABL1/ABL1IS levels above these defined thresholds. We then analyzed the outcomes of subjects displaying discordant molecular transcripts at 3- and 6-month time points. Among these patients, those with BCR-ABL1/ABL1IS values >10% at 3 months but <1% at 6 months fared significantly better than individuals with BCR-ABL1/ABL1IS <10% at 3 months but >1% at 6 months (event-free survival 68.2% vs. 32.7%; p < 0.001). Likewise, subjects with BCR-ABL1/ABL1IS at 3 months >10% but <1% at 6 months showed a higher cumulative incidence of MR4 compared to patients with BCR-ABL1/ABL1IS <10% at 3 months but >1% at 6 months (75% vs. 18.2%; p < 0.001). Finally, lower BCR-ABL1/GUSIS transcripts at diagnosis were associated with BCR-ABL1/ABL1IS values <1% at 6 months (p < 0.001). Our data suggest that when assessing early molecular responses to therapy, the 6-month BCR-ABL1/ABL1IS level displays a superior prognostic value compared to the 3-month measurement in patients with discordant oncogenic transcripts at these two pivotal time points. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]