Rosemary E Gale1, Katarina Lamb2, Christopher Allen2, Dima El-Sharkawi2, Cassandra Stowe2, Sarah Jenkinson2, Steven Tinsley2, Glenda Dickson2, Alan K Burnett2, Robert K Hills2, David C Linch2. 1. Rosemary E. Gale, Katarina Lamb, Christopher Allen, Dima El-Sharkawi, Cassandra Stowe, Sarah Jenkinson, Steven Tinsley, Glenda Dickson, and David C. Linch, University College London Cancer Institute, London; and Alan K. Burnett and Robert K. Hills, Cardiff University School of Medicine, Cardiff, United Kingdom. rosemary.gale@ucl.ac.uk. 2. Rosemary E. Gale, Katarina Lamb, Christopher Allen, Dima El-Sharkawi, Cassandra Stowe, Sarah Jenkinson, Steven Tinsley, Glenda Dickson, and David C. Linch, University College London Cancer Institute, London; and Alan K. Burnett and Robert K. Hills, Cardiff University School of Medicine, Cardiff, United Kingdom.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the impact of DNMT3A mutations on outcome in younger patients with cytogenetic intermediate-risk acute myeloid leukemia. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Diagnostic samples from 914 patients (97% < 60 years old) were screened for mutations in DNMT3A exons 13 to 23. Clinical outcome was evaluated according to presence or absence of a mutation and stratified according to type of mutation (R882, non-R882 missense, or truncation). RESULTS: DNMT3A mutations (DNMT3A(MUT)) were identified in 272 patients (30%) and associated with a poorer prognosis than wild-type DNMT3A, but the difference was only seen when the results were stratified according to NPM1 genotype. This example of Simpson's paradox results from the high coincidence of DNMT3A and NPM1 mutations (80% of patients with DNMT3A(MUT) had NPM1 mutations), where the two mutations have opposing prognostic impact. In the stratified analyses, relapse in patients with DNMT3A(MUT) was higher (hazard ratio, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.07 to 1.72; P = .01), and overall survival was lower (hazard ratio, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.12 to 1.87; P = .002). The impact of DNMT3A(MUT) did not differ according to NPM1 genotype (test for heterogeneity: relapse, P = .4; overall survival, P = .9). Further analysis according to the type of DNMT3A mutation indicated that outcome was comparable in patients with R882 and non-R882 missense mutants, whereas in those with truncation mutants, it was comparable to wild-type DNMT3A. CONCLUSION: These data confirm that presence of a DNMT3A mutation should be considered as a poor-risk prognostic factor, irrespective of the NPM1 genotype, and suggest that further consideration should be given to the type of DNMT3A mutation.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the impact of DNMT3A mutations on outcome in younger patients with cytogenetic intermediate-risk acute myeloid leukemia. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Diagnostic samples from 914 patients (97% < 60 years old) were screened for mutations in DNMT3A exons 13 to 23. Clinical outcome was evaluated according to presence or absence of a mutation and stratified according to type of mutation (R882, non-R882 missense, or truncation). RESULTS:DNMT3A mutations (DNMT3A(MUT)) were identified in 272 patients (30%) and associated with a poorer prognosis than wild-type DNMT3A, but the difference was only seen when the results were stratified according to NPM1 genotype. This example of Simpson's paradox results from the high coincidence of DNMT3A and NPM1 mutations (80% of patients with DNMT3A(MUT) had NPM1 mutations), where the two mutations have opposing prognostic impact. In the stratified analyses, relapse in patients with DNMT3A(MUT) was higher (hazard ratio, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.07 to 1.72; P = .01), and overall survival was lower (hazard ratio, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.12 to 1.87; P = .002). The impact of DNMT3A(MUT) did not differ according to NPM1 genotype (test for heterogeneity: relapse, P = .4; overall survival, P = .9). Further analysis according to the type of DNMT3A mutation indicated that outcome was comparable in patients with R882 and non-R882 missense mutants, whereas in those with truncation mutants, it was comparable to wild-type DNMT3A. CONCLUSION: These data confirm that presence of a DNMT3A mutation should be considered as a poor-risk prognostic factor, irrespective of the NPM1 genotype, and suggest that further consideration should be given to the type of DNMT3A mutation.
Authors: Bhavana Bhatnagar; Ann-Kathrin Eisfeld; Deedra Nicolet; Krzysztof Mrózek; James S Blachly; Shelley Orwick; David M Lucas; Jessica Kohlschmidt; William Blum; Jonathan E Kolitz; Richard M Stone; Clara D Bloomfield; John C Byrd Journal: Br J Haematol Date: 2016-08-01 Impact factor: 6.998
Authors: Jayakumar Vadakekolathu; Catherine Lai; Stephen Reeder; Sarah E Church; Tressa Hood; Anbarasu Lourdusamy; Michael P Rettig; Ibrahim Aldoss; Anjali S Advani; John Godwin; Matthew J Wieduwilt; Martha Arellano; John Muth; Tung On Yau; Farhad Ravandi; Kendra Sweet; Heidi Altmann; Gemma A Foulds; Friedrich Stölzel; Jan Moritz Middeke; Marilena Ciciarello; Antonio Curti; Peter J M Valk; Bob Löwenberg; Ivana Gojo; Martin Bornhäuser; John F DiPersio; Jan K Davidson-Moncada; Sergio Rutella Journal: Blood Adv Date: 2020-10-27
Authors: Thomas McKerrell; Thaidy Moreno; Hannes Ponstingl; Niccolo Bolli; João M L Dias; German Tischler; Vincenza Colonna; Bridget Manasse; Anthony Bench; David Bloxham; Bram Herman; Danielle Fletcher; Naomi Park; Michael A Quail; Nicla Manes; Clare Hodkinson; Joanna Baxter; Jorge Sierra; Theodora Foukaneli; Alan J Warren; Jianxiang Chi; Paul Costeas; Roland Rad; Brian Huntly; Carolyn Grove; Zemin Ning; Chris Tyler-Smith; Ignacio Varela; Mike Scott; Josep Nomdedeu; Ville Mustonen; George S Vassiliou Journal: Blood Date: 2016-04-27 Impact factor: 25.476