Cargando…

AML risk stratification models utilizing ELN-2017 guidelines and additional prognostic factors: a SWOG report

BACKGROUND: The recently updated European LeukemiaNet risk stratification guidelines combine cytogenetic abnormalities and genetic mutations to provide the means to triage patients with acute myeloid leukemia for optimal therapies. Despite the identification of many prognostic factors, relatively fe...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Pogosova-Agadjanyan, Era L., Moseley, Anna, Othus, Megan, Appelbaum, Frederick R., Chauncey, Thomas R., Chen, I-Ming L., Erba, Harry P., Godwin, John E., Jenkins, Isaac C., Fang, Min, Huynh, Mike, Kopecky, Kenneth J., List, Alan F., Naru, Jasmine, Radich, Jerald P., Stevens, Emily, Willborg, Brooke E., Willman, Cheryl L., Wood, Brent L., Zhang, Qing, Meshinchi, Soheil, Stirewalt, Derek L.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7425159/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32817791
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40364-020-00208-1
_version_ 1783570444263096320
author Pogosova-Agadjanyan, Era L.
Moseley, Anna
Othus, Megan
Appelbaum, Frederick R.
Chauncey, Thomas R.
Chen, I-Ming L.
Erba, Harry P.
Godwin, John E.
Jenkins, Isaac C.
Fang, Min
Huynh, Mike
Kopecky, Kenneth J.
List, Alan F.
Naru, Jasmine
Radich, Jerald P.
Stevens, Emily
Willborg, Brooke E.
Willman, Cheryl L.
Wood, Brent L.
Zhang, Qing
Meshinchi, Soheil
Stirewalt, Derek L.
author_facet Pogosova-Agadjanyan, Era L.
Moseley, Anna
Othus, Megan
Appelbaum, Frederick R.
Chauncey, Thomas R.
Chen, I-Ming L.
Erba, Harry P.
Godwin, John E.
Jenkins, Isaac C.
Fang, Min
Huynh, Mike
Kopecky, Kenneth J.
List, Alan F.
Naru, Jasmine
Radich, Jerald P.
Stevens, Emily
Willborg, Brooke E.
Willman, Cheryl L.
Wood, Brent L.
Zhang, Qing
Meshinchi, Soheil
Stirewalt, Derek L.
author_sort Pogosova-Agadjanyan, Era L.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The recently updated European LeukemiaNet risk stratification guidelines combine cytogenetic abnormalities and genetic mutations to provide the means to triage patients with acute myeloid leukemia for optimal therapies. Despite the identification of many prognostic factors, relatively few have made their way into clinical practice. METHODS: In order to assess and improve the performance of the European LeukemiaNet guidelines, we developed novel prognostic models using the biomarkers from the guidelines, age, performance status and select transcript biomarkers. The models were developed separately for mononuclear cells and viable leukemic blasts from previously untreated acute myeloid leukemia patients (discovery cohort, N = 185) who received intensive chemotherapy. Models were validated in an independent set of similarly treated patients (validation cohort, N = 166). RESULTS: Models using European LeukemiaNet guidelines were significantly associated with clinical outcomes and, therefore, utilized as a baseline for comparisons. Models incorporating age and expression of select transcripts with biomarkers from European LeukemiaNet guidelines demonstrated higher area under the curve and C-statistics but did not show a substantial improvement in performance in the validation cohort. Subset analyses demonstrated that models using only the European LeukemiaNet guidelines were a better fit for younger patients (age < 55) than for older patients. Models integrating age and European LeukemiaNet guidelines visually showed more separation between risk groups in older patients. Models excluding results for ASXL1, CEBPA, RUNX1 and TP53, demonstrated that these mutations provide a limited overall contribution to risk stratification across the entire population, given the low frequency of mutations and confounding risk factors. CONCLUSIONS: While European LeukemiaNet guidelines remain a critical tool for triaging patients with acute myeloid leukemia, the findings illustrate the need for additional prognostic factors, including age, to improve risk stratification.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7425159
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-74251592020-08-16 AML risk stratification models utilizing ELN-2017 guidelines and additional prognostic factors: a SWOG report Pogosova-Agadjanyan, Era L. Moseley, Anna Othus, Megan Appelbaum, Frederick R. Chauncey, Thomas R. Chen, I-Ming L. Erba, Harry P. Godwin, John E. Jenkins, Isaac C. Fang, Min Huynh, Mike Kopecky, Kenneth J. List, Alan F. Naru, Jasmine Radich, Jerald P. Stevens, Emily Willborg, Brooke E. Willman, Cheryl L. Wood, Brent L. Zhang, Qing Meshinchi, Soheil Stirewalt, Derek L. Biomark Res Research BACKGROUND: The recently updated European LeukemiaNet risk stratification guidelines combine cytogenetic abnormalities and genetic mutations to provide the means to triage patients with acute myeloid leukemia for optimal therapies. Despite the identification of many prognostic factors, relatively few have made their way into clinical practice. METHODS: In order to assess and improve the performance of the European LeukemiaNet guidelines, we developed novel prognostic models using the biomarkers from the guidelines, age, performance status and select transcript biomarkers. The models were developed separately for mononuclear cells and viable leukemic blasts from previously untreated acute myeloid leukemia patients (discovery cohort, N = 185) who received intensive chemotherapy. Models were validated in an independent set of similarly treated patients (validation cohort, N = 166). RESULTS: Models using European LeukemiaNet guidelines were significantly associated with clinical outcomes and, therefore, utilized as a baseline for comparisons. Models incorporating age and expression of select transcripts with biomarkers from European LeukemiaNet guidelines demonstrated higher area under the curve and C-statistics but did not show a substantial improvement in performance in the validation cohort. Subset analyses demonstrated that models using only the European LeukemiaNet guidelines were a better fit for younger patients (age < 55) than for older patients. Models integrating age and European LeukemiaNet guidelines visually showed more separation between risk groups in older patients. Models excluding results for ASXL1, CEBPA, RUNX1 and TP53, demonstrated that these mutations provide a limited overall contribution to risk stratification across the entire population, given the low frequency of mutations and confounding risk factors. CONCLUSIONS: While European LeukemiaNet guidelines remain a critical tool for triaging patients with acute myeloid leukemia, the findings illustrate the need for additional prognostic factors, including age, to improve risk stratification. BioMed Central 2020-08-12 /pmc/articles/PMC7425159/ /pubmed/32817791 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40364-020-00208-1 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Pogosova-Agadjanyan, Era L.
Moseley, Anna
Othus, Megan
Appelbaum, Frederick R.
Chauncey, Thomas R.
Chen, I-Ming L.
Erba, Harry P.
Godwin, John E.
Jenkins, Isaac C.
Fang, Min
Huynh, Mike
Kopecky, Kenneth J.
List, Alan F.
Naru, Jasmine
Radich, Jerald P.
Stevens, Emily
Willborg, Brooke E.
Willman, Cheryl L.
Wood, Brent L.
Zhang, Qing
Meshinchi, Soheil
Stirewalt, Derek L.
AML risk stratification models utilizing ELN-2017 guidelines and additional prognostic factors: a SWOG report
title AML risk stratification models utilizing ELN-2017 guidelines and additional prognostic factors: a SWOG report
title_full AML risk stratification models utilizing ELN-2017 guidelines and additional prognostic factors: a SWOG report
title_fullStr AML risk stratification models utilizing ELN-2017 guidelines and additional prognostic factors: a SWOG report
title_full_unstemmed AML risk stratification models utilizing ELN-2017 guidelines and additional prognostic factors: a SWOG report
title_short AML risk stratification models utilizing ELN-2017 guidelines and additional prognostic factors: a SWOG report
title_sort aml risk stratification models utilizing eln-2017 guidelines and additional prognostic factors: a swog report
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7425159/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32817791
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40364-020-00208-1
work_keys_str_mv AT pogosovaagadjanyaneral amlriskstratificationmodelsutilizingeln2017guidelinesandadditionalprognosticfactorsaswogreport
AT moseleyanna amlriskstratificationmodelsutilizingeln2017guidelinesandadditionalprognosticfactorsaswogreport
AT othusmegan amlriskstratificationmodelsutilizingeln2017guidelinesandadditionalprognosticfactorsaswogreport
AT appelbaumfrederickr amlriskstratificationmodelsutilizingeln2017guidelinesandadditionalprognosticfactorsaswogreport
AT chaunceythomasr amlriskstratificationmodelsutilizingeln2017guidelinesandadditionalprognosticfactorsaswogreport
AT chenimingl amlriskstratificationmodelsutilizingeln2017guidelinesandadditionalprognosticfactorsaswogreport
AT erbaharryp amlriskstratificationmodelsutilizingeln2017guidelinesandadditionalprognosticfactorsaswogreport
AT godwinjohne amlriskstratificationmodelsutilizingeln2017guidelinesandadditionalprognosticfactorsaswogreport
AT jenkinsisaacc amlriskstratificationmodelsutilizingeln2017guidelinesandadditionalprognosticfactorsaswogreport
AT fangmin amlriskstratificationmodelsutilizingeln2017guidelinesandadditionalprognosticfactorsaswogreport
AT huynhmike amlriskstratificationmodelsutilizingeln2017guidelinesandadditionalprognosticfactorsaswogreport
AT kopeckykennethj amlriskstratificationmodelsutilizingeln2017guidelinesandadditionalprognosticfactorsaswogreport
AT listalanf amlriskstratificationmodelsutilizingeln2017guidelinesandadditionalprognosticfactorsaswogreport
AT narujasmine amlriskstratificationmodelsutilizingeln2017guidelinesandadditionalprognosticfactorsaswogreport
AT radichjeraldp amlriskstratificationmodelsutilizingeln2017guidelinesandadditionalprognosticfactorsaswogreport
AT stevensemily amlriskstratificationmodelsutilizingeln2017guidelinesandadditionalprognosticfactorsaswogreport
AT willborgbrookee amlriskstratificationmodelsutilizingeln2017guidelinesandadditionalprognosticfactorsaswogreport
AT willmancheryll amlriskstratificationmodelsutilizingeln2017guidelinesandadditionalprognosticfactorsaswogreport
AT woodbrentl amlriskstratificationmodelsutilizingeln2017guidelinesandadditionalprognosticfactorsaswogreport
AT zhangqing amlriskstratificationmodelsutilizingeln2017guidelinesandadditionalprognosticfactorsaswogreport
AT meshinchisoheil amlriskstratificationmodelsutilizingeln2017guidelinesandadditionalprognosticfactorsaswogreport
AT stirewaltderekl amlriskstratificationmodelsutilizingeln2017guidelinesandadditionalprognosticfactorsaswogreport