| Literature DB >> 31915364 |
Lu-Hong Xu1,2, Jian-Pei Fang1, Yao-Chung Liu2,3, Adrianna I Jones4,5, Li Chai6.
Abstract
Studies on the clinical significance of Nucleophosmin (Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 31915364 PMCID: PMC6949268 DOI: 10.1038/s41408-019-0268-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Blood Cancer J ISSN: 2044-5385 Impact factor: 11.037
Characteristics of study population according to NPM1 mutation status.
| All patients | NPM1-mutated case | NPM1 wild-type case | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number (%) | 869 | 66 (7.6%) | 803 (92.4%) | |
| Age, median (year) | 9.6 | 13.4 | 9.1 | <0.001 |
| <3 years, | 211 (24.3%) | 3 (4.5%) | 208 (25.9%) | <0.001 |
| 3 ≤ Age <10 years, | 237 (27.3%) | 15 (22.7%) | 222 (27.6%) | 0.388 |
| 10 ≤ Age <18 years, | 421 (48.4%) | 48 (72.7%) | 373 (46.5%) | <0.001 |
| Sex (% female) | 47.6% | 50% | 47.4% | 0.690 |
| WBC, × 109/L, Median (rang) | 31.7 (0.2-610) | 28.6 (2.1-360.5) | 32.1 (0.2-610) | 0.541 |
| FAB classification: | 0.151 | |||
| M0 | 20 (2.8%) | 0 (0%) | 20 (3.0%) | 0.393 |
| M1 | 96 (13.5%) | 15 (26.8%) | 81 (12.3%) | 0.002 |
| M2 | 193 (27.1%) | 13 (23.2%) | 180 (27.4%) | 0.499 |
| M3 | 2 (0.3%) | 1 (1.8%) | 1 (0.2%) | 0.151 |
| M4 | 192 (26.9%) | 11 (19.6%) | 181 (27.5%) | 0.200 |
| M5 | 160 (22.4%) | 16 (28.6%) | 144 (21.9%) | 0.252 |
| M6 | 11 (1.5%) | 0 (0%) | 11 (1.7%) | >0.999 |
| M7 | 39 (5.5%) | 0 (0%) | 39 (5.9%) | 0.064 |
| FLT3/ITD | <0.001 | |||
| Positive, | 146 (16.8%) | 24 (36.4%) | 122 (15.2%) | |
| Negative, | 722 (83.2%) | 42(63.6%) | 680 (84.8%) | |
| FLT3/ITD allelic ratio | ||||
| Median (rangE) | 0.54 (0.03-9.50) | 0.48 (0.03-9.50) | 0.55 (0.03-5.19) | 0.551 |
| Cytogenetic status | <0.001 | |||
| Normal ( | 196 (23.7%) | 51 (81.0%) | 145 (19.0%) | |
| Abnormal ( | 631 (76.3%) | 12 (19.0%) | 619 (81.0%) | |
| SCT in 1st CR | 0.001 | |||
| No ( | 661 (83.7%) | 45 (69.2%) | 616 (85.0%) | |
| Yes ( | 129 (16.3%) | 20 (30.8%) | 109 (15.0%) | |
| Protocol | 0.915 | |||
| AAML03P1 ( | 91 (10.5%) | 6 (9.1%) | 85 (10.6%) | 0.703 |
| AAML0531 ( | 732 (84.2%) | 56 (84.8%) | 676 (84.2%) | 0.887 |
| CCG-2961 ( | 46 (5.3%) | 4 (6.1%) | 42 (5.2%) | 0.772 |
| CR status at end of course 1 | 0.022 | |||
| CR | 655 (76.3%) | 57 (87.7%) | 598 (75.3%) | 0.024 |
| Not CR | 189 (22.0%) | 8 (12.3%) | 181 (22.8%) | 0.050 |
| Death | 15 (1.7%) | 0 (0%) | 15 (1.9%) | 0.620 |
| CR status at end of course 2 | 0.014 | |||
| CR | 735 (87.2%) | 63 (96.9%) | 672 (86.4%) | 0.015 |
| Not CR | 88 (10.4%) | 2 (3.1%) | 86 (11.1%) | 0.043 |
| Death | 20 (2.4%) | 0 (0%) | 20 (2.6%) | 0.392 |
CR complete remission, FAB French–American–British morphology classification, FLT3/ITD internal tandem duplication of the FLT3 gene, SCT stem cell transplantation, WBC white blood cell count
Fig. 1Survival curves of all pediatric AML patients with and without NPM1 mutations, and according to the combined NPM1 and FLT3/ITD status.
a Probability of EFS for patients with and without NPM1 mutations. b Probability of OS for patients with and without NPM1 mutations. c Probability of EFS for patients according to the combined NPM1 and FLT3/ITD status. d Probability of OS for patients according to the combined NPM1 and FLT3/ITD status.
Statistical comparison of survival data according to both NPM1 and FLT3/ITD status in 868 pediatric AML.
| Comparison | EFS hazard ratio (95% CI) | EFS | OS hazard ratio | OS |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FLT3/ITD(−): NPM1 wild-type vs NPM1 mutant | 0.524 (0.301–0.912) | 0.022 | 0.509 (0.251–1.029) | 0.060 |
| FLT3/ITD(+): NPM1 wild-type vs NPM1 mutant | 0.323 (0.156–0.667) | 0.002 | 0.408 (0.176–0.944) | 0.036 |
| NPM1 wild-type: FLT3/ITD(−) vs FLT3/ITD(+) | 1.763 (1.393–2.231) | <0.001 | 1.612 (1.218–2.132) | 0.001 |
| NPM1 mutant: FLT3/ITD(−) vs FLT3/ITD(+) | 1.050 (0.435–2.534) | 0.914 | 1.283 (0.445–3.698) | 0.645 |
CI confidence interval, EFS event-free survival, FLT3/ITD internal tandem duplication of the FLT3 gene, OS overall survival
Fig. 2Survival curves of the subgroup of cytogenetically normal AML patients with and without NPM1 mutations, and according to the combined NPM1 and FLT3/ITD status.
a Probability of EFS for patients with and without NPM1 mutations. b Probability of OS for patients with and without NPM1 mutations. c Probability of EFS for patients according to the combined NPM1 and FLT3/ITD status. d Probability of OS for patients according to the combined NPM1 and FLT3/ITD status.
Fig. 3Survival curves of all pediatric AML patients according to the combined NPM1 and SCT status.
a Probability of EFS for patients without SCT. b Probability of OS for patients without SCT. c Probability of EFS for patients with SCT. d Probability of OS for patients with SCT.
Fig. 4Survival curves of FLT3/ITD-positive patients excluded with induction failure or death without complete remission, according to the combined NPM1 and SCT status.
a Probability of EFS for patients with NPM1 wild-type and FLT3/ITD mutations. b Probability of OS for patients with NPM1 wild-type and FLT3/ITD mutations. c Probability of EFS for patients with both NPM1 and FLT3/ITD mutations. d Probability of OS for patients with both NPM1 and FLT3/ITD mutations.
Multivariate analysis for EFS and OS in pediatric patients with AML.
| Outcome | Variable | Hazard ratio (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| EFS | NPM1 | 0.473 (0.283–0.790) | 0.004 |
| FLT3/ITD | 1.743 (1.296–2.345) | <0.001 | |
| SCT | 0.575 (0.419–0.790) | 0.001 | |
| Age >10 | 1.098 (0.889–1.356) | 0.387 | |
| Abnormal cytogenetics | 1.058 (0.789–1.420) | 0.705 | |
| OS | NPM1 | 0.452 (0.242–0.841) | 0.012 |
| FLT3/ITD | 1.600 (1.132–2.263) | 0.008 | |
| SCT | 0.824 (0.580–1.171) | 0.280 | |
| Age >10 | 1.192 (0.924–1.538) | 0.176 | |
| Abnormal cytogenetics | 0.995 (0.707–1.401) | 0.977 |
CI confidence interval, EFS event-free survival, FLT3/ITD internal tandem duplication of the FLT3 gene, OS overall survival, SCT stem cell transplantation