Evaluation of the New Genetic Risk Classification of the European LeukemiaNet Recommendations in 1,110 Patients with De Novo AML and Proposal of a Refined Version
Authors: Alpermann Tamara , Kern Wolfgang , Schnittger Susanne , Haferlach Claudia , Haferlach Torsten 
Published: October 2019

Abstract 413

Background:

The recently published recommendations for prognostication in AML (Döhner et al. for ELN, Blood 2010;115,453–474) were based on a review of the literature and included cytogenetics as well as NPM1, CEBPA and FLT3-ITD mutation status for risk stratification. We here aimed to evaluate the prognostic impact of this approach in an independent cohort. Patients: We started with a cohort of 1,428 adults with newly diagnosed AML, which were investigated by cytomorphology, immunophenotyping, cytogenetics, and molecular genetics. We first excluded patients with t(15;17) (n=59), therapy-associated AML (n=111) and secondary AML (n=148). Thus, 1,110 patients with de novo AML and cytogenetics available in all cases were further evaluated according to ELN criteria. The following molecular markers were investigated: NPM1 (1,064/1,110), FLT3-ITD (1,066/1,110), CEBPA (880/1,110), MLL-PTD (1,064/1,110) and RUNX1 (454/1,110). Results: Male/female ratio was 1.2 (598/512), median age was 66.6 years (range 18.3 – 100.4). According to the ELN proposal 297 (26.8%) pts were assigned to the favorable group (CBF leukemias, NPM1mut/without FLT3-ITD in normal karyotype (NK), or CEBPAmut in NK), 363 (32.7%) pts were classified as intermediate I (NPM1mut/FLT3-ITD+, or NPM1wt/FLT3-ITD+, or NPM1wt without FLT3-ITD; all NK), 249 (22.4%) as intermediate II (t(9;11) or cytogenetic abnormalities not classified as favorable or adverse), and 201 (18.1%) as adverse (inv(3)/t(3;3); t(6;9); t(v;11)(v;q23); −5 or del(5q); −7; abn(17p); complex karyotype, i.e. ≥ 3 chromosome abnormalities)). Evaluation according to these criteria revealed significant differences in overall survival between the favorable subgroup and all other subgroups (inter I p<0.001; inter II 0.008, adv <0.001). Also adverse vs all other subgroups (all p<0.001) differed significantly with respect to OS. However, no significant differences were observed between both large cohorts of inter I and inter II (together 55.1% of all pts). We therefore intended to revise the ELN criteria for better discrimination of the intermediate groups. In addition to ELN recommendations we considered a threshold of 0.5 for the FLT3-ITD ratio (mut/wt) which had been suggested more valid for prognostication than the mutation status per se. For the revised classification molecular markers were mandatory for all cases with intermediate risk cytogenetics. Therefore, 100 cases had to be excluded due to missing data. Thus, 1,010 pts were reclassified into our new subgroups defined as: favorable I: CBF leukemias; favorable II:NPM1mut or biallelic CEBPAmut (without any other molecular marker and no fav or adv cytogenetics); intermediate I:FLT3-ITD ratio <0.5 (without RUNX1 or MLL-PTD and no fav or adv cytogenetics); intermediate II:FLT3-ITD ratio ≥0.5 and/or RUNX1mut and/or MLL-PTD+ (and no fav or adv cytogenetics); adverse: as defined by ELN. Patients were distributed as follows: fav I: 68 (6.7%), fav II: 286 (28.3%), inter I: 157 (15.5%), inter II: 298 (29.5%), adv: 201 (19.9%). Fav I and fav II had no significant differences in OS (median n.r. vs 62.2 mo, n.s.) and therefore were grouped together as “favorable”. This finally leads to four different prognostic subgroups: favorable: CBF leukemias; NPM1mut or biallelic CEBPAmut, intermediate I:FLT3-ITD ratio <0.5, intermediate II:FLT3-ITD ratio ≥0.5 and/or RUNX1mut and/or MLL-PTD+, adverse. Patients were distributed as follows: fav: 354 (35.0%), inter I 157 (15.5%), inter II: 298 (29.5%), adv: 201 (19.9%). Median OS differed between all subgroups: fav 62.2, inter I 24.3, inter II 12.4, adv 8.7 mo. (fav vs inter I p=0.058, vs inter II <0.001, vs adv <0.001; inter I vs inter II 0.004, vs adv <0.001; inter II vs adv 0.039). Conclusion: The new ELN proposal for prognostication in de novo AML is based on cytogenetic and molecular genetic data. Based on this proposal we further improved prognostication in a series of 1,010 pts by integrating the following molecular markers besides cytogenetics: NPM1mut, biallelic CEBPAmut and FLT3-ITD ratio <0.5 for the favorable group and FLT3-ITD ratio ≥0.5, other CEBPAmut, MLL-PTD+, or RUNX1mut for the intermediate group, and adverse based on cytogenetics only. This refined version may contribute to a better risk assessment in de novo AML patients allowing to separate 4 subgroups with striking differences in OS.

Disclosures:

Alpermann: MLL Munich Leukemia Laboratory: Employment. Kern:MLL Munich Leukemia Laboratory: Employment, Equity Ownership. Schnittger:MLL Munich Leukemia Laboratory: Employment, Equity Ownership. Haferlach:MLL Munich Leukemia Laboratory: Employment, Equity Ownership. Haferlach:MLL Munich Leukemia Laboratory: Employment, Equity Ownership.