scholarly journals Adverse Impact of DNA Methylation Regulatory Gene Mutations on the Prognosis of AML Patients in the 2017 ELN Favorable Risk Group, Particularly Those Defined by NPM1 Mutation

Diagnostics ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (6) ◽  
pp. 986
Author(s):  
James Yu ◽  
Jingxin Sun ◽  
Yuan Du ◽  
Rushang Patel ◽  
Juan Carlos Varela ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Dna Methylation ◽  
Risk Group ◽  
Regulatory Gene ◽  
Gene Mutations ◽  
Risk Groups ◽  
Npm1 Mutation ◽  
Group A ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Favorable Group

The 2017 ELN risk stratification has been widely adopted, but some studies have suggested the outcomes are heterogenous within the ELN risk groups and may be affected by other co-existing genetic mutations. This study evaluated the impact of DNA methylation regulatory gene (TET2, IDH1/2, DNMT3A, SETBP1) mutations (DMRGM) evaluated by NGS in the outcome of AML patients in each ELN risk group. A total of 114 patients were analyzed with a median follow-up of 12 months. Overall, 30.7% (35/114) of patients had DMRGM. DMRGM status had no impact on CR rate in each ELN risk group. The OS, however, was significantly shorter in patients with DMRGM compared to those without DMRGM (median OS: 12 vs. 33 months, p = 0.0053). Multivariate analysis showed DMRGM status was an independent unfavorable factor for OS (HR: 2.704, 95% CI: 1.451–5.041, p = 0.0017). The adverse OS impact of DMRGM was only observed in the ELN favorable group (7 months vs. not reached, p = 0.0001), but not in the intermediate or adverse group. Among the favorable group with DMRGM (n = 16), DMRGM occurred predominantly in cases with mutated NPM1 (15/16, or 93.8%). Our results suggest that DMRGM adversely impact the outcomes of ELN favorable group patients, particularly those with mutated NPM1. Further studies are warranted to confirm our observations.

High Dose Daunorubicin Improves Survival in AML up to Age 60, Across All Cytogenetic Risk Groups Including Patients with Unfavorable Cytogenetic Risk, and FLT3-ITD Mutant AML: Updated Analyses from Eastern Cooperative Oncology Trial E1900

Blood ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 124 (21) ◽  
pp. 373-373 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marlise R. Luskin ◽  
Ju-Whei Lee ◽  
Hugo F Fernandez ◽  
Hillard M. Lazarus ◽  
Jacob M. Rowe ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
Induction Therapy ◽  
Risk Group ◽  
Multivariable Analysis ◽  
Risk Groups ◽  
Prognostic Impact ◽  
Npm1 Mutation ◽  
Mutation Status ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Background: Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group trial E1900 (E1900) showed that induction therapy with a high daily dose of daunorubicin (90 mg/m2) (DNR 90) improves survival in younger patients (pts) (<50 yrs) and intermediate (int) cytogenetic risk AML, but at 2 years of follow-up no benefit was seen in older pts (50-60 yrs), or in those with unfavorable cytogenetic risk or FLT3-ITD mutant AML (Fernandez et al. N Engl J Med 2009). Here we update results of E1900 with longer follow-up, focusing on the benefit of DNR 90 in cytogenetic and common molecular subgroups. Methods: Overall survival (OS) was measured from randomization for induction therapy to death from any cause (censored at last contact). Hazard ratios (HR) for death were computed using univariate and multivariable Cox proportional hazards models; multivariable Cox models were adjusted for sex, age, hemoglobin level, leukocyte count, platelet count, and cytogenetic profile. All conclusions regarding the impact of DNR 90, unless noted, are similar based on univariate and multivariable analysis. Results: Overall, 657 pts were enrolled with a median follow-up of 80.1 months. The HR for death in the DNR 90 group as compared with the standard-dose daunorubicin (45 mg/m2) (DNR 45) group was 0.74 (p=0.001). Pts <50 yrs benefited from DNR 90 (p = 0.002) while those >=50 yrs were not proven to benefit (p = 0.12). Pts with favorable (fav) and int. cytogenetic risk benefited from DNR 90 (p = 0.03 and p = 0.02, respectively). A benefit for pts with unfavorable cytogenetic risk was seen on multivariable analysis (p = 0.04). Impact of DNR 90 by mutation status: The 3 most common mutations were FLT3-ITD (24%), NPM1 (26%), and DNMT3A (24%). AML pts with any of these 3 mutations benefited from DNR 90 (p = 0.009, p = 0.002, and p = 0.02, respectively). FLT3-ITD pts who received DNR 90 had a 4-yr OS of 31%. Benefit was seen in pts age 50-60 with FLT3-ITD or NPM1 mutation (p = 0.02 and p = 0.04, respectively). No benefit of DNR 90 was seen in a small cohort of pts with MLL-PTD (p = 0.06). Benefit of DNR 90 in FLT3-ITD, NPM1, and DNMT3A mutant AML was confirmed in the int. cytogenetic risk group. Impact of DNR 90 on prognostic impact of NPM1: The presence of an NPM1 mutation conferred an improvement in OS in the DNR 90 group which was not seen in the DNR 45 group (p = 0.01 vs p = 0.3). This finding was confirmed in the int. cytogenetic risk group. Conclusion: With median follow-up of over 6 years on E1900, we confirm that DNR 90 improves outcome in pts with fav/int cytogenetic risk, DNMT3A or NPM1 mutant AML, or age < 50 (Patel et al. N Engl J Med 2012). Additionally, we now demonstrate that DNR 90 additionally benefits pts with FLT3-ITD AML, and pts with unfavorable cytogenetic risk, regardless of age. Moreover, we show that the favorable prognostic impact of the NPM1 mutation is only present when pts receive DNR 90. Given the benefit of DNR 90 across all cytogenetic risk groups as well as common molecularly defined subgroups of AML, DNR 90 should be the standard for all pts up to age 60 who are candidates for induction chemotherapy. Table HR for death by AML cohort. Subgroup N Univariate Model DNR 45 DNR 90 HR (DNR 90/DNR 45) & 95% CI Wald P All patients (n=657) Overall 330 327 0.74 (0.61, 0.89) 0.001 Age < 50 yrs³ 50 yrs 188 142 172 155 0.66 (0.50, 0.85) 0.81 (0.62, 1.06) 0.002 0.12 Cytogenetic Favorable Intermediate Unfavorable 38 232 59 51 212 63 0.51 (0.28, 0.93) 0.76 (0.61, 0.96) 0.79 (0.54, 1.16) 0.03 0.02 0.22 FLT3-ITD WT MUT 215 83 241 64 0.74 (0.59, 0.92) 0.61 (0.42, 0.89) 0.008 0.009 MLL-PTD WT MUT 290 16 296 15 0.70 (0.58, 0.86) 0.46 (0.21, 1.04) 0.0004 0.06 NPM1* WT MUT 180 65 192 65 0.70 (0.55, 0.89) 0.50 (0.32, 0.78) 0.003 0.002 DNMT3A WT MUT 177 61 194 58 0.66 (0.52, 0.85) 0.62 (0.41, 0.94) 0.001 0.02 * Statistically significant test of interaction (p<0.2) Figure 1A: Overall Survival by NPM1 Mutation Status and Treatment Arm Figure 1A:. Overall Survival by NPM1 Mutation Status and Treatment Arm Figure 1B: Overall Survival of FLT-ITD Mutant AML Patients by Treatment Arm Figure 1B:. Overall Survival of FLT-ITD Mutant AML Patients by Treatment Arm Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

scholarly journals Additional Gene Mutations Refine the 2017 European Leukemianet (ELN) Classification of Adult Patients (Pts) with De Novo Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML) Aged <60 Years: An Analysis of Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology (Alliance) Studies

Blood ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 2740-2740 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ann-Kathrin Eisfeld ◽  
Jessica Kohlschmidt ◽  
Krzysztof Mrózek ◽  
Alice S. Mims ◽  
Christopher J. Walker ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Genetic Risk ◽  
Risk Group ◽  
Gene Mutations ◽  
Risk Groups ◽  
Prognostic Impact ◽  
Intermediate Risk ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Npm1 Mutation ◽  
Disease Free

Abstract The ELN recommendations for diagnosis and management of AML in adults, authored by a panel of international experts, have become an important tool to assess pts' prognosis and guide treatment decisions. Following advances in our understanding of the molecular landscape of AML, several gene mutations were added as criteria for assigning pts to genetic risk categories in the 2017 ELN classification. The aim of our study was to apply the 2017 ELN risk groups to a large cohort of 864 AML pts aged <60 years who were similarly treated with intensive cytarabine/daunorubicin based chemotherapy on Cancer and Leukemia Group B/Alliance protocols. In addition, we sought to identify novel gene markers that could refine the ELN classification. Using the 2017 ELN genetic risk-stratification criteria, we assigned 49% of pts to the Favorable-risk group, whereas 22% and 29% of pts belonged to the Intermediate- and Adverse-risk groups, respectively. The complete remission (CR) rate of Favorable-risk pts was 92%, compared with 77% and 48% CR rates of Intermediate-risk and Adverse-risk pts. Fifty-two percent of Favorable-risk pts were disease-free and 63% were alive 3 years after diagnosis, compared with the respective 3-year rates of 22% and 32% for pts belonging to the Intermediate-risk group, and only 10% and 19%, respectively, for pts classified in the Adverse-risk group. Using a targeted 80-gene sequencing panel, we detected 2,354 mutations, with a median of 3 per pt. The frequencies of specific mutations differed between the ELN risk groups. We performed multivariable outcome analyses for the achievement of CR, disease-free (DFS) and overall (OS) survival within each of the ELN groups. Within the Favorable-risk group MVA analyses, the presence of WT1 mutations associated with lower CR rates (P=0.02). Mutations in BCOR (P=0.02), IDH1 (P=0.04), KIT (P<0.001), PTPN11 (P=0.01) and SETBP1 (P=0.02) associated with a shorter DFS; mutated BCOR (P=0.02), IDH1 (P=0.006), SETBP1 (P=0.004), WT1 (P<0.001) and ZRSR2 (P=0.002) associated with a shorter OS. In the Intermediate-risk group MVA analyses, mutations in WT1 associated with lower CR rates (P=0.02). Mutations in DNMT3A and WT1 associated with shorter DFS (DNMT3A, P<0.001; WT1, P=0.01) and OS (DNMT3A, P<0.001; WT1, P=0.005). In the Adverse-risk group MVA analyses, IDH2 mutations associated with lower CR rates (P=0.05). NRAS mutations associated with shorter DFS (P<0.001) and OS (P=0.008). In addition, IDH2- (P=0.03) and TET2-mutated pts (P=0.009) had shorter OS than pts without these mutations. Among FLT3-ITDlow pts, those harboring NPM1 mutation had higher CR rates (P<0.001) and longer OS (P=0.001), but not DFS (P=0.16), than pts with wild-type (wt) NPM1. Within the FLT3-ITDhigh cohort, pts with an NPM1 mutation had higher CR rates than those without (P<0.001). However, there was no difference in either DFS or OS between NPM1 mutated and NPM1 wt pts, indicating that the negative prognostic impact of FLT3-ITDhigh may outweigh the positive prognostic impact of NPM1 mutations with respect to those survival endpoints. We also noted that the negative prognostic impact of WT1 mutations was worsened by co-occurring NPM1 mutations. Similarly, the impact of IDH1 mutations within the Favorable group was influenced by NPM1 mutations, with IDH1/NPM1 co-mutated patients having inferior survival. Based on the results of our multivariable analyses, as well as co-occurring mutations, we provide a possible refinement of the ELN genetic risk stratification in Table 1. DFS and OS of the re-classified pts were comparable to DFS and OS of the original ELN groups (Figure 1). Importantly, the re-classification also changed the percentages of AML patients assigned to specific risk groups, reducing the Favorable-risk group from 49% to 39% and increasing the Adverse-risk group from 29% to 38%, with the Intermediate-risk group remaining almost the same (23% vs 22%). In summary, our study provides a comprehensive analysis of genetic prognostic markers in younger AML pts treated with standard chemotherapy within the framework of the ELN risk classification. Furthermore, we identified several combinations of co-occurring mutations with prognostic significance. Our results provide a refinement of the 2017 ELN risk classification, and identify additional pts that may need more intensive treatment early on. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882, U10CA180861, U24CA196171; ClinicalTrials.gov Disclosures Mims: Abbvie Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy. Kolitz:Magellan Health: Consultancy, Honoraria. Powell:Rafael Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Efficacy of avelumab + axitinib (A + Ax) versus sunitinib (S) by IMDC risk group in advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC): Extended follow-up results from JAVELIN Renal 101.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 4574-4574
Author(s):  
John B. A. G. Haanen ◽  
James Larkin ◽  
Toni K. Choueiri ◽  
Laurence Albiges ◽  
Brian I. Rini ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Group ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Risk Groups ◽  
Complete Response ◽  
Duration Of Response ◽  
Treatment Naïve ◽  
Group A ◽  
To Receive

4574 Background: In the phase 3 JAVELIN Renal 101 trial (NCT02684006), treatment-naive patients with aRCC receiving A + Ax showed improved progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR) across International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) risk groups (favorable [F], intermediate [I], and poor [P]) compared with patients receiving S. Here we report updated efficacy results for A + Ax vs S by IMDC risk groups from the third interim analysis. Methods: Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive either A (10 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks) plus Ax (5 mg orally twice daily) or S (50 mg orally once daily) for 4 weeks (6-week cycle). Patients were categorized per IMDC risk group into F, I, and P subgroups, and outcomes were assessed for F, I, P, and I + P. Overall survival (OS) and PFS, ORR, complete response (CR), and duration of response (DoR) per investigator assessment (RECIST v1.1) were assessed. Results: The study enrolled 886 patients with aRCC. At data cutoff (Apr 2020), median (95% CI) follow-up for OS in the A + Ax was NR (42.2-NE) vs 37.8 (31.4-NE) months with S. The Table shows OS, PFS, ORR, CR, and DOR by IMDC risk group. A + Ax generally showed improved efficacy compared with S across IMDC groups. Conclusions: Consistent with previously reported results from prior interim analyses, extended follow-up confirms the efficacy benefits of A + Ax vs S across IMDC risk groups in patients with aRCC. Patients continue to be followed up for the final OS analysis. Clinical trial information: NCT02684006. [Table: see text]

Adverse Impact of Mutations in DNA Methylation Regulatory Genes on the Prognosis of AML Patients in the 2017 ELN Favorable Risk Group

Blood ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 16-17
Author(s):  
James Yu ◽  
Jingxin Sun ◽  
Yuan Du ◽  
Chung-Che Chang
Keyword(s):  
Dna Methylation ◽  
Risk Stratification ◽  
Risk Group ◽  
Gene Mutations ◽  
Risk Groups ◽  
Regulatory Genes ◽  
P Value ◽  
Intermediate Group ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Group 1

Introduction In 2017, the European LeukemiaNet (ELN) stratified AML patients into 3 risk groups based on the presence or absence of specific chromosome abnormalities and selected gene mutations.1 However, some studies have suggested that the prognosis or CR rates are heterozygous in the 2017 ELN favorable group depending on the specific co-existing mutations.2 Although they were not included in 2017 ELN due to an insufficient accumulation of evidence, some mutations involved in DNA methylation, including DNMT3A and IDH1/2, revealed adverse effects in AML prognosis.1,3-5 The goal of the current study was to evaluate how the DNA methylation regulatory (DNA-MR) gene mutations may impact the outcomes of AML patients categorized as favorable risk according to the ELN risk stratification. Methodology All AML patients diagnosed at our institution from 2017-08-01 to 2020-03-10 were reviewed for this study. All patient samples were tested for morphologic evaluation, flow cytometry immunophenotyping, conventional karyotyping and next generation sequencing using a target panel covering 53 AML related genes, including DNA-MR genes: DNMT3A, TET2, IDH1, IDH2 or SETBP1. All AML cases were then classified based on 2016 WHO classification of AML, and risk groups were assigned using the ELN risk stratification scheme. Treatment-related AML patients were excluded. Afterward, patients aged 18 - 75 who underwent intensive induction chemotherapy were included for survival and response rate analysis, since the ELN risk stratification scheme was built primarily based on this population. The patients were divided into 4 groups: 1) ELN favorable with at least one mutation of DNA-MR genes 2) ELN favorable without DNA-MR gene mutations, 3) ELN intermediate, and 4) ELN adverse. The log-rank test was used to compare the OS and RFS difference between 4 groups. CR rates were compared by chi-square test or Fischer's exact test. Bonferroni adjustment was performed to prevent type I error at a level of 0.8%. Two-tailed statistical significance at a level of 5% was used for statistical analysis. All analyses were performed using SAS 9.4 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC) and R RStudio Team (2020). Results A total of 125 patients were qualified for the study and the median follow-up for the cohort was 404 days. Among ELN favorable risk patients (n = 45), the mutations of DNA-MR genes occurred in 19 (42.2%) patients: DNMT3A, 20% (9/45); IDH2, 13% (6/45); TET2, 11% (5/45); IDH1, 9% (4/25). This led to 19, 26, 38, and 42 patients classified as Groups 1, 2, 3 and 4 respectively. In contrast, DNA-MR gene mutations were less common in ELN intermediate and adverse groups, and occurred in 34.2% (13/38) and 19.0% (8/42) respectively. Figure 1 shows OS and RFS of 4 groups by Kaplan-Myer Curve. The median OS for groups 1, 2, 3 and 4 were 306, not reached, 987, and 422 days, respectively. There was significant difference in OS between ELN favorable with versus without DNA-MR gene mutations (Group 1 vs 2; p-value: 0.0002). There was no significant OS difference between ELN favor with DNA-MR gene mutations versus ELN intermediate (Group 1 vs 3; p-value: 0.0921) or versus ELN adverse group (Group 1 vs 4; p-value: 0.9455). The median RFS for groups 1, 2, 3 and 4 were 511, not reached, 240, and 305 days. There was significant difference in RFS between ELN favorable with versus without DNA-MR gene mutations (Group 1 vs 2: adjusted p-value:0.0089). There were no significant RFS differences between ELN favorable with DNA-MR gene mutations versus intermediate (Group 1 vs 3; p value: 0.2304) or versus adverse group (Groups 1 vs 4; p-value: 0.6661). CR rate of groups 1, 2, 3 and 4 were 79%, 96%, 82% and 57% respectively. The CR rate of Group 1 was not statistically significantly different from CR rate of Group 2, 3, and 4. Further subgroup analysis revealed that the co-existing DNA-MR gene mutations did not impact OS and RFS in ELN intermediate and adverse groups. Discussion Our results indicate that mutations of DNA methylation regulatory genes are common in AML patients with ELN favorable risk. Furthermore, these mutations lead to poor prognosis of this subgroup of patients considered favorable risk, with OS and RFS similar to that of patients in the ELN adverse risk group. Currently this subgroup of patients does not receive upfront stem cell transplant due to the favorable outcome and thus may not receive adequate treatment. Further studies are warranted to confirm our observations. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

scholarly journals Understanding and responding to COVID-19 in Wales: protocol for a privacy-protecting data platform for enhanced epidemiology and evaluation of interventions

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (10) ◽  
pp. e043010
Author(s):  
Jane Lyons ◽  
Ashley Akbari ◽  
Fatemeh Torabi ◽  
Gareth I Davies ◽  
Laura North ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Policy Development ◽  
Healthcare Utilisation ◽  
Population Data ◽  
Population Level ◽  
Risk Groups ◽  
Service Utilisation ◽  
Natural Experiments ◽  
Spread Of Infection ◽  
The Impact

IntroductionThe emergence of the novel respiratory SARS-CoV-2 and subsequent COVID-19 pandemic have required rapid assimilation of population-level data to understand and control the spread of infection in the general and vulnerable populations. Rapid analyses are needed to inform policy development and target interventions to at-risk groups to prevent serious health outcomes. We aim to provide an accessible research platform to determine demographic, socioeconomic and clinical risk factors for infection, morbidity and mortality of COVID-19, to measure the impact of COVID-19 on healthcare utilisation and long-term health, and to enable the evaluation of natural experiments of policy interventions.Methods and analysisTwo privacy-protecting population-level cohorts have been created and derived from multisourced demographic and healthcare data. The C20 cohort consists of 3.2 million people in Wales on the 1 January 2020 with follow-up until 31 May 2020. The complete cohort dataset will be updated monthly with some individual datasets available daily. The C16 cohort consists of 3 million people in Wales on the 1 January 2016 with follow-up to 31 December 2019. C16 is designed as a counterfactual cohort to provide contextual comparative population data on disease, health service utilisation and mortality. Study outcomes will: (a) characterise the epidemiology of COVID-19, (b) assess socioeconomic and demographic influences on infection and outcomes, (c) measure the impact of COVID-19 on short -term and longer-term population outcomes and (d) undertake studies on the transmission and spatial spread of infection.Ethics and disseminationThe Secure Anonymised Information Linkage-independent Information Governance Review Panel has approved this study. The study findings will be presented to policy groups, public meetings, national and international conferences, and published in peer-reviewed journals.

scholarly journals The impact of certain underlying comorbidities on the risk of developing hospitalised pneumonia in England

Pneumonia ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Campling ◽  
D. Jones ◽  
J. D. Chalmers ◽  
Q. Jiang ◽  
A. Vyse ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Group ◽  
Risk Groups ◽  
Chronic Respiratory Disease ◽  
Marrow Transplant ◽  
Community Acquired Pneumonia ◽  
Comorbid Condition ◽  
Odds Ratios ◽  
Comparator Group ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Background UK specific data on the risk of developing hospitalised CAP for patients with underlying comorbidities is lacking. This study compared the likelihood of hospitalised all-cause community acquired pneumonia (CAP) in patients with certain high-risk comorbidities and a comparator group with no known risk factors for pneumococcal disease. Methods This retrospective cohort study interrogated data in the Hospital Episodes Statistics (HES) dataset between financial years 2012/13 and 2016/17. In total 3,078,623 patients in England (aged ≥18 years) were linked to their hospitalisation records. This included 2,950,910 individuals with defined risk groups and a comparator group of 127,713 people who had undergone tooth extraction with none of the risk group diagnoses. Risk groups studied were chronic respiratory disease (CRD), chronic heart disease (CHD), chronic liver disease (CLD), chronic kidney disease (CKD), diabetes (DM) and post bone marrow transplant (BMT). The patients were tracked forward from year 0 (2012/13) to Year 3 (2016/17) and all diagnoses of hospitalised CAP were recorded. A Logistic regression model compared odds of developing hospitalised CAP for patients in risk groups compared to healthy controls. The model was simultaneously adjusted for age, sex, strategic heath authority (SHA), index of multiple deprivation (IMD), ethnicity, and comorbidity. To account for differing comorbidity profiles between populations the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) was applied. The model estimated odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals of developing hospitalised CAP for each specified clinical risk group. Results Patients within all the risk groups studied were more likely to develop hospitalised CAP than patients in the comparator group. The odds ratios varied between underlying conditions ranging from 1.18 (95% CI 1.13, 1.23) for those with DM to 5.48 (95% CI 5.28, 5.70) for those with CRD. Conclusions Individuals with any of 6 pre-defined underlying comorbidities are at significantly increased risk of developing hospitalised CAP compared to those with no underlying comorbid condition. Since the likelihood varies by risk group it should be possible to target patients with each of these underlying comorbidities with the most appropriate preventative measures, including immunisations.

Impact of Cytogenetics Risk on Outcome after Reduced Intensity Conditioning (RIC) Allogeneic Stem Cell Transplantation (allo-SCT) from An HLA Identical Sibling for Patients with Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML) in First Complete Remission (CR1)

Blood ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 112 (11) ◽  
pp. 345-345
Author(s):  
Mohamad Mohty ◽  
Myriam Labopin ◽  
Noel-Jean Milpied ◽  
Jan J. Cornelissen ◽  
Didier Blaise ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Stem Cell ◽  
Risk Group ◽  
Conditioning Regimen ◽  
Early Death ◽  
Risk Groups ◽  
New Drugs ◽  
Intermediate Group ◽  
Poor Risk ◽  
The Poor ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Allo-SCT is a well established therapy for adult patients with AML. In the setting of standard myeloablative allo-SCT, the fear of early death as a result of the procedure led to the restriction of allo-SCT in CR1 to patients who presented with high risk AML features, especially taking into account the impact of cytogenetics risk on outcome determining standard (good)-, intermediate-, and poor-risk populations. In the last decade, RIC allo-SCT has emerged as an attractive modality to decrease toxicity and widen the spectrum of AML patients who are candidate to allo-SCT. However, the issue of possible higher relapse rates after RIC allo-SCT, and continuous improvements in non-allo-SCT strategies, raise concern about the utility of this approach in AML patients in CR1 (e.g. in comparison to intensive chemotherapy and new drugs). Of note, no large studies have yet assessed the impact of cytogenetics risk on outcome in the context of RIC allo-SCT. This report describes the results of 378 AML patients (185 males) transplanted in CR1 using a RIC regimen and reported to the EBMT registry between 2000 and 2007, and for whom detailed cytogenetics data were available. All patients received RIC allo-SCT from an HLA identical sibling. RIC was defined as Busulfan conditioning regimens containing &lt; 8mg/kg total dose, or TBI &lt;6 Gy: The median age at time of allo-SCT was 55 (range, 18–74) y. The median intervals from AML diagnosis to CR1 and from CR1 to RIC allo- SCT were 45 and 155 days respectively. In this series, 21 patients (6%) belonged to the good cytogenetics risk group, while 304 patients (80%) and 53 patients (14%) belonged to the intermediate and poor cytogenetics risk groups respectively. Age, year of transplant, WBC at diagnosis, gender, CMV serostatus, stem cell source, and RIC regimen type were comparable between all three groups. The M5-6-7 FAB subgroup was significantly higher in the poor risk group (30% vs. 20% in the intermediate group). With a median follow-up of 24 (range, 1–93) months, the KM estimates of 2 years leukemia-free survival (LFS) were 64+/−4, 57+/-3 and 38+/−7% in the good-, intermediate-, and poor-risk subgroups respectively (P=0.003). In multivariate analysis, cytogenetics was not significantly associated with non-relapse mortality. However, relapse incidence was significantly influenced by the cytogenetics risk groups (P=0.0001) and a higher WBC at diagnosis (P=0.001). Finally, LFS was significantly influenced by the cytogenetics risk groups (P=0.004), a higher WBC at diagnosis (P=0.006), and year of transplant (P=0.04). Despite its retrospective nature, results from this large study strongly suggest that RIC allo-SCT from an HLA-matched sibling donor is a valid option for AML patients in CR1 not eligible for standard allo-SCT. As it has been shown in the setting of myeloablative conditioning allo-SCT, patients from the poor cytogenetics risk group had increased relapse incidence and decreased LFS rate after RIC allo-SCT. Therefore, prospective strategies such as use of new drugs, intensification of conditioning regimen, post HST immunotherapy should be investigate to improve current results in this group.

Survival in Patients with Newly Diagnosed Myeloma Undergoing Therapy with Lenalidomide and Dexamethasone: Impact of High-Risk Cytogenetic Risk Status on Outcome

Blood ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 112 (11) ◽  
pp. 95-95 ◽  
Author(s):  
Prashant Kapoor ◽  
Shaji Kumar ◽  
Rafael Fonseca ◽  
Martha Q. Lacy ◽  
Thomas E Witzig ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Risk Stratification ◽  
Plasma Cell ◽  
Risk Groups ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
High Risk Patients ◽  
Risk Patients ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Standard Risk

Abstract Background: Multiple myeloma (MM) is a heterogeneous disease with very divergent outcomes that are dictated in a large part by specific cytogenetic abnormalities, as well as other prognostic factors such as the proliferative rate of marrow plasma cells. Prognostic systems incorporating these factors have shown clinical utility in identifying high-risk patients, and are increasingly being utilized for treatment decision-making. However, the prognostic relevance of these factors may change with the application of novel therapies. The objective of this study was to determine the impact of risk-stratification (incorporating plasma cell metaphase cytogenetics, interphase fluorescent in-situ hybridization (FISH) and the slide-based plasma cell labeling index (PCLI)) in a cohort of patients with newly diagnosed MM treated initially with lenalidomide + dexamethasone (Rev-Dex). Methods: From March 2004 to November 2007, 100 consecutive patients treated with Rev (25mg/day) on days 1 through 21 of a 4-week cycle in combination with dexamethasone as initial therapy for newly diagnosed myeloma, were identified. High-risk MM was defined as presence of any one or more of the following: hypodiploidy, monoallelic loss of chromosome 13 or its long arm (by metaphase cytogenetics only), deletion of p53 (locus 17p13) or PCLI ≥ 3% or immunoglobulin heavy chain (IgH) translocations, t(4;14) (p16.3;q32) or t(14;16)(q32;q23) on FISH. PFS and OS survival estimates were created using the Kaplan Meier method, and compared by log-rank tests. Results: The median estimated follow-up of the entire cohort (N=100) was 36 months. The median PFS was 31 months; the median OS has not been reached. The 2- and 3-year OS estimates were 93% and 83%, respectively. 16% patients were deemed high-risk by at least one of the 3 tests (cytogenetics, FISH or PCLI). Response rates (PR or better) were 81% versus 89% in the high-risk and standard risk groups, respectively, P=NS; corresponding values for CR plus VGPR rates were 38% and 45% respectively. The median PFS was 18.5 months in high-risk patients compared to 37 months in the standard-risk patients (n=84), P<0.001(Figure). Corresponding values for TTP were 18.5 months and 36.5 months, respectively, P=<0.001. OS was not statistically significant between the two groups; 92% 2-year OS was noted in both the groups. Overall, 95 patients had at least one of the 3 tests to determine risk, while 55 patients could be adequately stratified based on the availability of all the 3 tests, or at least one test result that led to their inclusion in the high-risk category. The significant difference in PFS persisted even when the analysis was restricted to the 55 patients classified using this stringent criterion; 18.5 months vs. 36.5 months in the high-risk and standard- risk groups respectively; P<0.001. In a separate analysis, patients who underwent SCT before the disease progression were censored on the date of SCT to negate its effect, and PFS was still inferior in the high-risk group (p=0.002). Conclusion: The TTP and PFS of high-risk MM patients are inferior to that of the standard-risk patients treated with Rev-Dex, indicating that the current genetic and proliferation-based risk-stratification model remains prognostic with novel therapy. However, the TTP, PFS, and OS obtained in high-risk patients treated with Rev-Dex in this study is comparable to overall results in all myeloma patients reported in recent phase III trials. In addition, no significant impact of high-risk features on OS is apparent so far. Longer follow-up is needed to determine the impact of risk stratification on the OS of patients treated with Rev-Dex. Figure Figure

Quantitative Monitoring of NPM1 Mutation A Minimal Residual Disease Identifies Patients At High Risk for Relapse within the ELN Favorable Risk Group

Blood ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 120 (21) ◽  
pp. 1404-1404
Author(s):  
Max Hubmann ◽  
Marion Subklewe ◽  
Thomas Köhnke ◽  
Stephanie Schneider ◽  
Annika Dufour ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Induction Therapy ◽  
Residual Disease ◽  
Risk Group ◽  
Disease Recurrence ◽  
Consolidation Therapy ◽  
Rt Pcr ◽  
Npm1 Mutation ◽  
Minimal Residual

Abstract Abstract 1404 Introduction: Molecular analyses of leukemia-specific markers has led to an improvement of the prognosis evaluation in patients (pts) with acute myeloid leukemia (AML). The European Leukemia Net (ELN) has published a classification which separates different subgroups by cytogenetic and molecular genetic analyses. Nevertheless, there are still pts suffering from disease recurrence within the ELN favorable risk group. To identify these pts at high risk for relapse the monitoring of minimal residual disease (MRD) of leukemia-specific markers could become an important diagnostic tool. In this study the potential of MRD monitoring by quantitative real-time PCR (RT-PCR) of NPM1 A mutation (NPM1 A) at different checkpoints within the ELN favorable risk group of pts with NPM1 A and without FLT3-ITD was investigated. Methods: Pts participating in the AMLCG99, AMLCG2004, and AMLCG2008 trial were prospectively or retrospectively screened for NPM1 mutation and FLT3-ITD by melting curve analyses. 334 pts were screened positive for NPM1 mutation and 262 pts showed a NPM1 A, 78.4 % of all NPM1 mutations. For MRD monitoring a relative RT-PCR was performed in 538 samples of 178 NPM1 A positive pts with a sensitivity of 10-6. MRD was monitored at diagnosis, in aplasia, after induction therapy, after consolidation therapy, and during the follow-up. MRD levels were normalized to the housekeeping gene ABL1 and expressed as a ratio to an internal control of known concentration. Results: In the analysis of the NPM1 A positive and FLT3-ITD negative pts (ELN favorable risk group) 82.5% (n=85) achieved complete remission (CR) after induction therapy. With a median follow-up of 26 (range 1–118) months, 36 (42.9%) pts relapsed within this subgroup. In aplasia, and after induction therapy, pts with a long-lasting remission showed significantly lower NPM1 A ratios in contrast to pts who relapsed during the follow-up. Via Receiver-Operating Curves (ROC) we analyzed the diagnostic power to identify pts at high risk for relapse and determined clinical useable cut-offs at the different checkpoints. ROC were significantly associated with disease recurrence at the checkpoints in aplasia and after induction therapy, but not after consolidation therapy. After induction therapy, a cut-off with a ratio of 0.01 was determined. This cut-off separates the patient cohort into two prognostic groups. NPM1 A MRD levels above the cut-offs result in an increased risk of relapse compared to pts with MRD level below this cut-off. This is reflected in a significantly lower 2-year relapse free survival (RFS) of 18% versus 72% (Figure 1). In 25 pts of this favorable risk group follow-up samples in CR were available for analysis of an upcoming relapse within 100 days of sampling. Only 2 of these pts developed relapse within of the next 100 days, but both pts showed increasing MRD levels prior to relapse. 18 relapse samples were available in this subgroup and interestingly, one patient (5.5%) was NPM1 A negative at relapse. When we further enrolled the FLT3-ITD positive pts into our analyses, not surprisingly we found a negative impact on the RFS of MRD positive and MRD negative pts. Conclusions: Our results confirm the observations of other studies that showed the prognostic impact of NPM1 MRD monitoring by RT-PCR. With the MRD monitoring we could identify pts at high risk for relapse within the ELN favorable risk group. Particularly high MRD levels after the induction therapy were strongly associated with a worse RFS. This and previously published data of others demonstrate that in addition to pre-therapeutic factors, the individual MRD course should be used as prognostic factor for the guidance of treatment and pts with high or increasing levels of MRD should undergo allogeneic stem cell transplantation, if eligible. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Adjuvant docetaxel for high-risk localized prostate cancer: Update of NRG Oncology/RTOG 0521.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (6_suppl) ◽  
pp. 333-333
Author(s):  
Howard M. Sandler ◽  
Theodore Karrison ◽  
A. Oliver Sartor ◽  
Leonard G. Gomella ◽  
Mahul B. Amin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Proportional Hazards ◽  
Type I Error ◽  
Risk Group ◽  
Risk Groups ◽  
Localized Prostate Cancer ◽  
Type I ◽  
Group 1

333 Background: High-risk, localized prostate cancer has a poor prognosis. We hypothesized that adj docetaxel (D) and prednisone and long-term (24 mos) androgen suppression (AS) and radiation therapy (RT) would improve overall survival (OS) and tested this in NRG/RTOG 0521. Results with med follow-up of 5.7 yrs were reported (JCO 37:1159, 2019), showing a benefit of D (HR=0.69, 90% CI: 0.49-0.97, 1-sided p=0.034). Med follow-up is now 10.4 yrs and we report updated results for OS and metastasis (DM). Methods: NRG/RTOG 0521 opened 12/05 and closed 8/09 with targeted accrual of 600 and designed to detect a HR of 0.49, based on improvement in 4-yr OS from 86 to 93%. With 0.05 1-sided type I error and 90% power >78 deaths were required. Pts were stratified by predefined risk groups. Group 1: Gl 9-10, any T; Group 2: Gl 8, PSA<20, T≥T2; Group 3: Gl 8, PSA≥20, any T; Group 4: Gl 7, PSA≥20, any T. maxPSA ≤150. RT dose was 75.6 Gy. Chemo consisted of 6, 21-day cycles of D starting 28 days after RT. Results: Of 612 accrued, 563 were eligible/available for analysis. By risk group 1-4, there were 297, 116, 64, and 86 pts. Med PSA 15 ng/mL. 10-yr OS rates were 64% [95% CI: 58-70%] for AS+RT and 69% [95% CI: 63-75%] for AS+RT+CT (HR = 0.89, 90% CI: 0.70, 1.13, 1-sided p=0.22). However there was evidence of non-proportional hazards (Grambsch-Therneau test, p=0.016). Thus survival was alternatively evaluated with restricted mean survival time (RMST). The difference in RMST at 10 yrs was 0.42 yrs (90% CI: 0.07-0.77, 2-sided p=0.048). Cumulative incidence of DM at 10 yrs was 22% [95% CI: 17-27%] for AS+RT and 20% [95% CI: 15-25%] for AS+RT+CT (2-sided log-rank p=0.29). At 10 years most deaths occurred in risk group 1: 62 in AS+RT and 50 in AS+RT+CT (HR= 0.93, 95% CI: 0.66-1.32, 2-sided log-rank p=0.16). There was no new related Grade 5 toxicity. Conclusions: OS findings, reported after follow-up of 5.7 yrs, demonstrated a small beneficial effect of adding D to AS and RT. With longer follow-up the benefit of D remains, but the HR varies over time and the OS curves have converged. Support: U10CA180868 (NRG Operations), U10CA180822 (NRG SDMC), U24CA180803 (IROC) from the NCI and Sanofi-Synthelabo Int. Clinical trial information: NCT00288080.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document