Dissemin is shutting down on January 1st, 2025

Published in

Springer Nature [academic journals on nature.com], Leukemia, 4(37), p. 788-798, 2023

DOI: 10.1038/s41375-023-01846-8

Links

Tools

Export citation

Search in Google Scholar

Outcome prediction by the 2022 European LeukemiaNet genetic-risk classification for adults with acute myeloid leukemia: an Alliance study

This paper was not found in any repository, but could be made available legally by the author.
This paper was not found in any repository, but could be made available legally by the author.

Full text: Unavailable

Green circle
Preprint: archiving allowed
Orange circle
Postprint: archiving restricted
Red circle
Published version: archiving forbidden
Data provided by SHERPA/RoMEO

Abstract

AbstractRecently, the European LeukemiaNet (ELN) revised its genetic-risk classification of acute myeloid leukemia (AML). We categorized 1637 adults with AML treated with cytarabine/anthracycline regimens according to the 2022 and 2017 ELN classifications. Compared with the 2017 ELN classification, 2022 favorable group decreased from 40% to 35% and adverse group increased from 37% to 41% of patients. The 2022 genetic-risk groups seemed to accurately reflect treatment outcomes in all patients and patients aged <60 years, but in patients aged ≥60 years, relapse rates, disease-free (DFS) and overall (OS) survival were not significantly different between intermediate and adverse groups. In younger African-American patients, DFS and OS did not differ between intermediate-risk and adverse-risk patients nor did DFS between favorable and intermediate groups. In Hispanic patients, DFS and OS did not differ between favorable and intermediate groups. Outcome prediction abilities of 2022 and 2017 ELN classifications were similar. Among favorable-risk patients, myelodysplasia-related mutations did not affect patients with CEBPAbZIP mutations or core-binding factor AML, but changed risk assignment of NPM1-mutated/FLT3-ITD-negative patients to intermediate. NPM1-mutated patients with adverse-risk cytogenetic abnormalities were closer prognostically to the intermediate than adverse group. Our analyses both confirm and challenge prognostic significance of some of the newly added markers.