| Literature DB >> 34589425 |
Yongzhi Zheng1, Yan Huang1, Shaohua Le1, Hao Zheng1, Xueling Hua1, Zaisheng Chen1, Xiaoqin Feng2, Chunfu Li3, Mincui Zheng4, Honggui Xu5, Yingyi He6, Xiangling He7, Jian Li1, Jianda Hu1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A high ecotropic viral integration site 1 (EVI1) expression (EVI1 high) is an independent prognostic factor in adult acute myeloid leukemia (AML). However, little is known of the prognostic value of EVI1 high in pediatric AML. This study aimed to examine the biological and prognostic significance of EVI1 high in uniformly treated pediatric patients with AML from a large cohort of seven centers in China.Entities:
Keywords: EVI1; acute myeloid leukemia; adverse outcome; pediatric; prognostic factor; transplantation
Year: 2021 PMID: 34589425 PMCID: PMC8474639 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2021.712747
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Oncol ISSN: 2234-943X Impact factor: 6.244
Clinical and genetic characteristics according to the EVI1 status.
| Characteristic | All patients (n = 421) |
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| |||
| | 74 (7–176) | 44 (12–163) | 75 (7–176) | |
|
|
| |||
| | 264 (62.7) | 26 (68.4) | 238 (62.1) | |
| | 157 (37.3) | 12 (31.6) | 145 (37.9) | |
|
|
| |||
| | 294 (69.8) | 31 (81.6) | 263 (68.7) | |
| | 127 (30.2) | 7 (18.4) | 120 (31.3) | |
|
|
| |||
| | 32 (7.6) | 9 (23.7) | 23 (6.0) | |
| | 389 (92.4) | 29 (76.3) | 360 (94.0) | |
|
| ||||
| | 106 (25.2) | 0 (0) | 106 (27.7) |
|
| | 28 (6.7) | 0 (0) | 28 (7.3) |
|
| | 70 (16.6) | 15 (39.5) | 55 (14.4) |
|
| | 32 (7.6) | 6 (15.8) | 26 (6.8) |
|
| | 17 (4.0) | 3 (7.9) | 14 (3.7) |
|
| | 13 (3.1) | 3 (7.9) | 10 (2.6) |
|
|
|
| |||
| | 128 (30.4) | 0 (0) | 128 (33.4) | |
| | 177 (42.0) | 17 (44.7) | 160 (41.8) | |
| | 116 (27.6) | 21 (55.3) | 95 (24.8) | |
|
| ||||
| | 47 (11.2) | 3 (7.9) | 44 (11.5) |
|
| | 49 (11.6) | 3 (7.9) | 46 (12.0) |
|
| | 13 (3.1) | 0 (0) | 13 (3.4) |
|
| | 9 (2.1) | 0 (0) | 9 (2.3) |
|
| | 40 (9.5) | 0 (0) | 40 (10.4) |
|
|
|
| |||
| | 342 (81.4) | 29 (76.3) | 313 (81.9) | |
| | 31 (7.4) | 2 (5.3) | 29 (7.6) | |
| | 47 (11.2) | 7 (18.4) | 40 (10.5) | |
|
|
| |||
| | 20 (4.8) | 2 (5.3) | 18 (4.7) | |
| | 390 (92.6) | 35 (92.1) | 355 (92.7) | |
| | 11 (2.6) | 1 (2.6) | 10 (2.6) |
*Patients may be counted more than once owing to the coexistence of more than one cytogenetic abnormality in the leukemic clone.
†Favorable risk: t (15;17), t (8;21), inv (16)/t (16;16); unfavorable risk: inv (3) or t (3;3),t (6;9), t (v;11q23) other than t (9;11), -5 or del (5q), -7 or del (7q), abn (17p), complex karyotype (three or more abnormalities in the absence of a WHO designated recurring chromosome abnormality); intermediate risk: all chromosome abnormalities not classified as favorable or unfavorable. #Only 383 patients were included in this part, for 38 cases giving up treatment or loss to follow-up.
Bold values indicated statistically significant differences.
Figure 1Survival outcome for high EVI1 expression in pediatric AML. Kaplan–Meier curve estimates for the (A) EFS and (B) OS in the total cohort between EVI1 high and EVI1 low patients.
Figure 2Univariate Cox regression analysis of the (A) EFS and (B) OS among 383 pediatric AML patients. *Risk category based on treatment regimens. Refer to . @Risk category based on cytogenetic stratification of ELN 2017.
Figure 3Multivariate Cox regression analysis of the (A) EFS and (B) OS among 383 pediatric AML patients. *Risk category based on treatment regimens. Refer to . @Risk category based on cytogenetic stratification of ELN 2017.
Figure 4Survival outcomes by EVI1 expression among patients carrying t(v;11). Kaplan–Meier curve estimates for the (A) EFS and (B) OS in the cohort of MLL rearranged AML between EVI1 high and EVI1 low patients. Kaplan–Meier curve estimates for the (C) EFS and (D) OS in the cohort of MLL-AF9 rearranged AML between EVI1 high and EVI1 low patients.
Univariate and multivariate analysis of patients with MLL rearrangement.
| Cases (n = 65) | EFS | OS | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Univariate Analysis |
| 95% CI |
| 95% CI | ||
| Age (+1 year) | 0.993 | 0.981–1.006 | 0.292 | 0.997 | 0.984–1.009 | 0.602 |
| Gender (Male) | 0.824 | 0.299–2.274 | 0.709 | 0.706 | 0.227–2.191 | 0.547 |
| WBC (≥50X109/L) | 2.600 | 0.943–7.173 | 0.065 | 3.115 | 0.988–9.816 | 0.052 |
| FAB (M7) | 2.333 | 0.522–10.418 | 0.267 | 1.203 | 0.155–9.348 | 0.860 |
| Risk Category1* |
| 0.771–6.616 | 0.137 | 3.287 | 1.041–10.381 |
|
| Risk Category2@ | 2.599 | 0.888–7.606 | 0.081 | 3.924 | 1.062–14.504 |
|
| FLT3-ITD mutation | 1.078 | 0.142–8.210 | 0.942 | 1.443 | 0.186–11.192 | 0.726 |
|
| 7.253 | 2.559–20.561 |
| 9.921 | 2.954–33.319 |
|
| ASXL1 mutation | 0.041 | 0.000–39.818 | 0.363 | 0.041 | 0.000–97.422 | 0.421 |
| Induction protocol (DAE) | 3.390 | 1.226–9.371 |
| 2.704 | 0.857–8.528 | 0.090 |
| No CR after 2nd course | 8.280 | 2.252–30.448 |
| 6.891 | 1.438–33.021 |
|
| Blast>15% in BM after 1st course | 1.962 | 0.442–8.705 | 0.376 | 2.760 | 0.604–12.618 | 0.190 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Risk Category1* | / | / | / | 0.985 | 0.206–4.715 | 0.985 |
| Risk Category2@ | / | / | / | 1.593 | 0.331–7.667 | 0.561 |
| Induction protocol (DAE) | 3.284 | 0.849–12.707 | 0.085 | / | / | / |
|
| 7.315 | 2.208–24.229 |
| 7.186 | 1.843–28.019 |
|
|
| 3.046 | 0.625 | 0.168 | 4.840 | 0.836 | 0.078 |
*Risk category based on treatment regimens. Refer to .
@Risk category based on cytogenetic stratification of ELN 2017.
Bold values indicated statistically significant differences.
Figure 5Survival outcomes by treatment regimens among EVI1 high patients. Kaplan–Meier curve estimates the impact of different induction regimens on the (A) EFS and (B) OS in the cohort of EVI1 high patients. Kaplan–Meier curve estimates the impact of HSCT after CR1 on the (C) EFS and (D) OS in the cohort of EVI1 high patients.