PURPOSE: To evaluate the prognostic significance of the international European LeukemiaNet (ELN) guidelines for reporting genetic alterations in acute myeloid leukemia (AML). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We analyzed 1,550 adults with primary AML, treated on Cancer and Leukemia Group B first-line trials, who had pretreatment cytogenetics and, for cytogenetically normal patients, mutational status of NPM1, CEBPA, and FLT3 available. We compared complete remission (CR) rates, disease-free survival (DFS), and overall survival (OS) among patients classified into the four ELN genetic groups (favorable, intermediate-I, intermediate-II, adverse) separately for 818 younger (age < 60 years) and 732 older (age ≥ 60 years) patients. RESULTS: The percentages of younger versus older patients in the favorable (41% v 20%; P < .001), intermediate-II (19% v 30%; P < .001), and adverse (22% v 31%; P < .001) genetic groups differed. The favorable group had the best and the adverse group the worst CR rates, DFS, and OS in both age groups. Both intermediate groups had significantly worse outcomes than the favorable but better than the adverse group. Intermediate-I and intermediate-II groups in older patients had similar outcomes, whereas the intermediate-II group in younger patients had better OS but not better CR rates or DFS than the intermediate-I group. The prognostic significance of ELN classification was confirmed by multivariable analyses. For each ELN group, older patients had worse outcomes than younger patients. CONCLUSION: The ELN classification clearly separates the genetic groups by outcome, supporting its use for risk stratification in clinical trials. Because they have different proportions of genetic alterations and outcomes, younger and older patients should be reported separately when using the ELN classification.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the prognostic significance of the international European LeukemiaNet (ELN) guidelines for reporting genetic alterations in acute myeloid leukemia (AML). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We analyzed 1,550 adults with primary AML, treated on Cancer and Leukemia Group B first-line trials, who had pretreatment cytogenetics and, for cytogenetically normal patients, mutational status of NPM1, CEBPA, and FLT3 available. We compared complete remission (CR) rates, disease-free survival (DFS), and overall survival (OS) among patients classified into the four ELN genetic groups (favorable, intermediate-I, intermediate-II, adverse) separately for 818 younger (age < 60 years) and 732 older (age ≥ 60 years) patients. RESULTS: The percentages of younger versus older patients in the favorable (41% v 20%; P < .001), intermediate-II (19% v 30%; P < .001), and adverse (22% v 31%; P < .001) genetic groups differed. The favorable group had the best and the adverse group the worst CR rates, DFS, and OS in both age groups. Both intermediate groups had significantly worse outcomes than the favorable but better than the adverse group. Intermediate-I and intermediate-II groups in older patients had similar outcomes, whereas the intermediate-II group in younger patients had better OS but not better CR rates or DFS than the intermediate-I group. The prognostic significance of ELN classification was confirmed by multivariable analyses. For each ELN group, older patients had worse outcomes than younger patients. CONCLUSION: The ELN classification clearly separates the genetic groups by outcome, supporting its use for risk stratification in clinical trials. Because they have different proportions of genetic alterations and outcomes, younger and older patients should be reported separately when using the ELN classification.
Authors: Jonathan E Kolitz; Stephen L George; Guido Marcucci; Ravi Vij; Bayard L Powell; Steven L Allen; Daniel J DeAngelo; Thomas C Shea; Wendy Stock; Maria R Baer; Vera Hars; Kati Maharry; Eva Hoke; James W Vardiman; Clara D Bloomfield; Richard A Larson Journal: Blood Date: 2010-06-03 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: David Grimwade; Robert K Hills; Anthony V Moorman; Helen Walker; Stephen Chatters; Anthony H Goldstone; Keith Wheatley; Christine J Harrison; Alan K Burnett Journal: Blood Date: 2010-04-12 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Klaus H Metzeler; Kati Maharry; Michael D Radmacher; Krzysztof Mrózek; Dean Margeson; Heiko Becker; John Curfman; Kelsi B Holland; Sebastian Schwind; Susan P Whitman; Yue-Zhong Wu; William Blum; Bayard L Powell; Thomas H Carter; Meir Wetzler; Joseph O Moore; Jonathan E Kolitz; Maria R Baer; Andrew J Carroll; Richard A Larson; Michael A Caligiuri; Guido Marcucci; Clara D Bloomfield Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-02-22 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Heiko Becker; Guido Marcucci; Kati Maharry; Michael D Radmacher; Krzysztof Mrózek; Dean Margeson; Susan P Whitman; Yue-Zhong Wu; Sebastian Schwind; Peter Paschka; Bayard L Powell; Thomas H Carter; Jonathan E Kolitz; Meir Wetzler; Andrew J Carroll; Maria R Baer; Michael A Caligiuri; Richard A Larson; Clara D Bloomfield Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-12-21 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Timothy J Ley; Li Ding; Matthew J Walter; Michael D McLellan; Tamara Lamprecht; David E Larson; Cyriac Kandoth; Jacqueline E Payton; Jack Baty; John Welch; Christopher C Harris; Cheryl F Lichti; R Reid Townsend; Robert S Fulton; David J Dooling; Daniel C Koboldt; Heather Schmidt; Qunyuan Zhang; John R Osborne; Ling Lin; Michelle O'Laughlin; Joshua F McMichael; Kim D Delehaunty; Sean D McGrath; Lucinda A Fulton; Vincent J Magrini; Tammi L Vickery; Jasreet Hundal; Lisa L Cook; Joshua J Conyers; Gary W Swift; Jerry P Reed; Patricia A Alldredge; Todd Wylie; Jason Walker; Joelle Kalicki; Mark A Watson; Sharon Heath; William D Shannon; Nobish Varghese; Rakesh Nagarajan; Peter Westervelt; Michael H Tomasson; Daniel C Link; Timothy A Graubert; John F DiPersio; Elaine R Mardis; Richard K Wilson Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2010-11-10 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Bas J Wouters; Bob Löwenberg; Claudia A J Erpelinck-Verschueren; Wim L J van Putten; Peter J M Valk; Ruud Delwel Journal: Blood Date: 2009-01-26 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Hartmut Döhner; Elihu H Estey; Sergio Amadori; Frederick R Appelbaum; Thomas Büchner; Alan K Burnett; Hervé Dombret; Pierre Fenaux; David Grimwade; Richard A Larson; Francesco Lo-Coco; Tomoki Naoe; Dietger Niederwieser; Gert J Ossenkoppele; Miguel A Sanz; Jorge Sierra; Martin S Tallman; Bob Löwenberg; Clara D Bloomfield Journal: Blood Date: 2009-10-30 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: James W Vardiman; Jüergen Thiele; Daniel A Arber; Richard D Brunning; Michael J Borowitz; Anna Porwit; Nancy Lee Harris; Michelle M Le Beau; Eva Hellström-Lindberg; Ayalew Tefferi; Clara D Bloomfield Journal: Blood Date: 2009-04-08 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Joan How; Michael Slade; Khoan Vu; John F DiPersio; Peter Westervelt; Geoffrey L Uy; Camille N Abboud; Ravi Vij; Mark A Schroeder; Todd A Fehniger; Rizwan Romee Journal: Biol Blood Marrow Transplant Date: 2017-01-10 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Meir Wetzler; Krzysztof Mrózek; Jessica Kohlschmidt; Hervé Dombret; Hartmut Döhner; Sylvain Pilorge; Utz Krug; Andrew J Carroll; Richard A Larson; Guido Marcucci; Wolfgang Hiddemann; Thomas Büchner; Clara D Bloomfield Journal: Haematologica Date: 2013-10-04 Impact factor: 9.941
Authors: Irina A Tikhonova; Martin W Hoyle; Tristan M Snowsill; Chris Cooper; Joanna L Varley-Campbell; Claudius E Rudin; Ruben E Mujica Mota Journal: Pharmacoeconomics Date: 2017-03 Impact factor: 4.981