High WT1 Expression Has An Independent Positive Influence On CR Rate and EFS in Non M3 AML Patients Treated with Chemotherapy.
Authors: Colombo Nicoletta , Grasso Raffaella , Miglino Maurizio , Clavio Marino , Pica Gianmatteo , Beltrami Germana , Bergamaschi Micaela , Marani Carlo , Cagnetta Antonia , Ghiso Anna , Mitscheunig Laura , Pierri Ivana , Ballerini Filippo , Canepa Letizia , Aquino Sara , De Astis Enrico , Carella Angelo Michele , Gobbi Marco 
Published: October 2019

Abstract 4675

The prognostic value of WT1 expression at diagnosis is still controversial. It has been retrospectively evaluated in 99 consecutive non pretreated non M3 AML patients who had undergone a complete prognostic work up at diagnosis and had received intensive chemotherapy.

Biological markers were evaluated on fresh marrow samples collected at diagnosis. WT1 expression was evaluated using TaqMan Gene Expression Assays as described.

All patients received induction therapy with combination of fludarabine, Ara-C and anthracycline ± low dose gemtuzumab ozogamicin (n. 59) or with a conventional combination of Ara-C and anthracycline (n. 40) A conventional post-induction chemotherapy including intermediate dosage Ara-C was administered to all responding patients.

Univariate comparisons between patients in CR vs non CR were performed using chi-square analysis or Fisher's exact test for categorical variables and t-test for continuous variables. P values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. Analyses were performed using SPSS. The prognostic impact of WT1 expression was evaluated using quartiles as cut off point and selecting the one with the lowest p value. The event free survival and OS were calculated using the Kaplan Meier method. Non CR after the first induction course, relapse and death due to any cause were considered events. OS and EFS duration were calculated from start of treatment. The impact of multiple predictor variables was assessed by multivariate analyses according to the Cox regression model for OS and EFS while for the evaluation of RC was used the Logistic regression model.

Median age of patients was 59 years (range 17-81). Cytogenetic alterations were prognostically favorable in 3 patients and belonged to the intermediate prognostic group in 77 patients (normal karyotype in 75 patients and +8 in two). Nineteen patients had a poor prognosis cytogenetics. For statistical analyses we considered two karyotipic groups: unfavorable (19 patients) and not unfavorable (80 patients).

CRs were 60/99 (60%), of which 40 in 51 patients aged 60 or less (78%) and 20 in 48 older than 60 years (41%). Twenty-six patients relapsed, 54 are alive, 45 have died, with a median follow up of 360 days (range 20-2300).

In Table 1 are reported clinical indicators of outcome being patients grouped according to the percentile of WT1 expression with the lowest p value (75th). Statystical analysis showed that all WT1 quartiles were balanced for other prognostic factors, such as cytogenetics, BAALC expression, FLT3 and NPMA and B mutations, age, blast count and therapy.

The lack of consense on the role of WT1 level at diagnosis in the prognostic stratification indicate that further clinical studies are required. The clear correlation between the level of WT1 transcript and the tumor burden explains why WT1 is used in the follow up of leukemic patients as universal marker of residual disease, also in patients with specific chimeric products. On the contrary, the biological explanation of the prognostic impact of WT1 transcript level at diagnosis remains uncertain. Over the years WT1 gene has been considered as an oncogene or a tumor suppressor gene. In our experience the protective influence of high WT1 expression cannot be explained with an association with good prognosis biological features (such as mut NPM and / or low BAALC). The positive prognostic value of high WT1 expression might be implicated either with WT1 antioncogenic function, or with the stimulating effect of WT1 oncogene on leukemic cellular cycle, possibly associated with an enhanced response to chemotherapy.Table 1WT1 <= 2400 N./N.pts (%)WT1 > 2400 N./N.pts (%)p univ,p multiv.*RR (95% CI)CR (all karyotypes)41/ 75 (54)19/24 (82)0,0260.063.364 (0.927-12.202)CR (int/good karyot.)36/59 (61)19/210.010,0276.649 (1.240-35.645)CR (denovo AML int kar)31/45 (69)14/15 (98)0.020,03412.557 (1.218-129.446)CR (denovo, N.K.)26/40 (65)15/16 (94)0.0250.0413.430 (1.111-162.318)EFS at 24 months (all karyotypes)8%6%0.0020.050.486 (0.235-1.007)EFS at 24 months (int / good karyot.)9%64%0.0010.0230.360 (0.150-0.866)EFS at 24 months (de novo, N.K.)5%70%0.0010.0070.227 (0.077-0.671)OS (all karyot)15%55%0,110,660.837 (0.371-1.890)OS (int/good kar.)18%63%0,050,180.507 (0.186-1.381)Table 1 legend: * for multivariate analysis age, karyotype, FLT3, NPM mutation, BAALC expression, denovo/secondary disease were considered.

Disclosures:

No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.