| Literature DB >> 35922444 |
Nikolaus Jahn1, Ekaterina Jahn1, Maral Saadati2, Lars Bullinger3, Richard A Larson4, Tiziana Ottone5,6, Sergio Amadori5, Thomas W Prior7, Joseph M Brandwein8, Frederick R Appelbaum9, Bruno C Medeiros10, Martin S Tallman11, Gerhard Ehninger12, Michael Heuser13, Arnold Ganser13, Celine Pallaud14, Insa Gathmann14, Julia Krzykalla15, Axel Benner15, Clara D Bloomfield16, Christian Thiede12, Richard M Stone17, Hartmut Döhner1, Konstanze Döhner18.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to characterize the mutational landscape of patients with FLT3-mutated acute myeloid leukemia (AML) treated within the randomized CALGB 10603/RATIFY trial evaluating intensive chemotherapy plus the multi-kinase inhibitor midostaurin versus placebo. We performed sequencing of 262 genes in 475 patients: mutations occurring concurrently with the FLT3-mutation were most frequent in NPM1 (61%), DNMT3A (39%), WT1 (21%), TET2 (12%), NRAS (11%), RUNX1 (11%), PTPN11 (10%), and ASXL1 (8%) genes. To assess effects of clinical and genetic features and their possible interactions, we fitted random survival forests and interpreted the resulting variable importance. Highest prognostic impact was found for WT1 and NPM1 mutations, followed by white blood cell count, FLT3 mutation type (internal tandem duplications vs. tyrosine kinase domain mutations), treatment (midostaurin vs. placebo), ASXL1 mutation, and ECOG performance status. When evaluating two-fold variable combinations the most striking effects were found for WT1:NPM1 (with NPM1 mutation abrogating the negative effect of WT1 mutation), and for WT1:treatment (with midostaurin exerting a beneficial effect in WT1-mutated AML). This targeted gene sequencing study provides important, novel insights into the genomic background of FLT3-mutated AML including the prognostic impact of co-mutations, specific gene-gene interactions, and possible treatment effects of midostaurin.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35922444 PMCID: PMC9417991 DOI: 10.1038/s41375-022-01650-w
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Leukemia ISSN: 0887-6924 Impact factor: 12.883
Baseline characteristics of 475 patients with FLT3-mutation.
| Placebo | Midostaurin | Overall | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age at registration (years) | |||
| Mean (SD) | 46.0 (11.3) | 45.2 (10.6) | 45.5 (10.9) |
| Median [Min, Max] | 49.3 [18.0, 59.9] | 47.1 [19.0, 59.8] | 47.9 [18.0, 59.9] |
| Sex | |||
| Male | 90 (40.5%) | 118 (46.6%) | 208 (43.8%) |
| Female | 132 (59.5%) | 135 (53.4%) | 267 (56.2%) |
| TKD | 54 (24.3%) | 62 (24.5%) | 116 (24.4%) |
| ITD < 0.5 allelic ratio | 61 (27.5%) | 65 (25.7%) | 126 (26.5%) |
| ITD ≥ 0.5 allelic ratio | 106 (47.7%) | 126 (49.8%) | 232 (48.8%) |
| Missing | 1 (0.5%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (0.2%) |
| WBC count at baseline (10E9/L) | |||
| Mean (SD) | 54.1 (58.8) | 48.7 (46.6) | 51.2 (52.7) |
| Median [Min, Max] | 33.1 [0.8, 330] | 36.4 [0.6, 304] | 35.4 [0.6, 330] |
| Missing | 1 (0.5%) | 2 (0.8%) | 3 (0.6%) |
| ECOG performance status | |||
| 0–1 | 193 (86.9%) | 229 (90.5%) | 422 (88.8%) |
| 2 | 29 (13.1%) | 24 (9.5%) | 53 (11.2%) |
| Treatment | |||
| Placebo | 222 (100%) | 0 (0%) | 222 (46.7%) |
| Midostaurin | 0 (0%) | 253 (100%) | 253 (53.3%) |
ECOG Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group, WBC white blood cell count, SD standard deviation.
Fig. 1Frequency of recurrently mutated genes as well as cytogenetics in 475 FLT3-mutated patients categorized according to recently defined genomic classes [1].
Each column represents a single patient, each dark gray colored box indicates a specified driver mutation or cytogenetic feature. Wildtype cases are illustrated in beige, FLT3-ITD mutations in dark red, FLT3-TKD mutations in blue. Bar plots indicate the relative frequency of all aberrations in the entire cohort. CK complex karyotype, NA not available, NK normal karyotype.
Fig. 2Mutational landscape of FLT3-mutated acute myeloid leukemia.
A Mutational landscape of 475 patients stratified according to the FLT3 mutation type. B Incidence of mutations in the midostaurin kinome in the entire cohort of 475 patients.
Fig. 3Random survival forest model for impact of clinical and/or genetic variables as well as pairwise interactions on prognosis.
Prognostic and potential predictive impact of 18 most relevant clinical and/or genetic variables (A, B) and pairwise interactions (C, D) in 475 patients on overall and event-free survival using random survival forests. The prognostic impact of a variable is measured via VIMP (variable importance). Higher VIMP values indicate that a variable may have prognostic impact on the survival endpoint. EFS event-free survival, OS overall survival.
Fig. 4The three most interesting interactions regarding overall survival as selected by random survival forests.
NMP1:WT1 (A), NPM1:SMC1A (B) and WT1:treatment (C). Kaplan–Meier plots illustrating the influence of the clinical and/or genetic variables and their combination on overall survival: first variable (left) and the second variable (middle) as well as the combination of the two (right).
Fig. 5Prognostic impact of genomic AML classes and clinical characteristics in FLT3-mutated AML.
Cox proportional hazard model for prognostic impact of genomic AML classes and clinical features on (A) overall and (B) event-free survival in the cohort of 451 of 475 patients, in which subcategorization into genomic AML classes was possible. A hazard ratio of >1 indicates a higher and a hazard ratio of <1 a lower hazard of death or event, respectively. The NPM1 class was used as reference group, allogeneic HCT in first remission as time-dependent variable. ECOG Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group, HCT hematopoietic cell transplantation, WBC white blood cell count.
Cox proportional hazard model for predictive impact of genomic AML classes on hazard of death or event after treatment with midostaurin in the cohort of 451 of 475 patients, in which subcategorization into genomic AML classes was possible.
| Overall survival | Event-free survival | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | HR [CI. 95] | HR [CI. 95] | ||
| Age | 1.01 [0.99; 1.02] | 0.357 | 1.00 [0.99; 1.01] | 0.841 |
| Sex | ||||
| Male | Reference | |||
| Female | 1.01 [0.77; 1.33] | 0.940 | 1.34 [1.06; 1.69] | 0.013 |
| TKD | Reference | |||
| ITD < 0.5 allelic ratio | 1.15 [0.75; 1.76] | 0.533 | 1.36 [0.96; 1.93] | 0.085 |
| ITD ≥ 0.5 allelic ratio | 1.58 [1.09; 2.28] | 0.016 | 1.52 [1.12; 2.05] | 0.007 |
| ECOG (0–1 vs. 2) | 1.27 [0.84; 1.91] | 0.261 | 0.90 [0.62; 1.31] | 0.595 |
| log2WBC | 1.08 [1.00; 1.17] | 0.046 | 1.08 [1.01; 1.16] | 0.018 |
| Allogeneic HCT in CR1 | 0.59 [0.41; 0.84] | 0.004 | 0.71 [0.48; 1.04] | 0.077 |
| Midostaurin vs. Placebo | 0.65 [0.45; 0.93] | 0.018 | 0.76 [0.57; 1.03] | 0.077 |
| CBF | ||||
| Midostaurin vs. Placebo | 1.37 [0.23; 8.23] | 0.729 | 0.88 [0.24; 3.29] | 0.853 |
| Midostaurin vs. Placebo | 1.11 [0.32; 3.86] | 0.866 | 0.39 [0.15; 1.02] | 0.055 |
| Chromatin-Spliceosome | ||||
| Midostaurin vs. Placebo | 0.52 [0.29; 0.92] | 0.026 | 0.48 [0.28; 0.82] | 0.007 |
| No Class | ||||
| Midostaurin vs. Placebo | 0.55 [0.28; 1.07] | 0.079 | 0.64 [0.36; 1.13] | 0.123 |
| Placebo | ||||
| CBF vs. | 0.46 [0.11; 1.92] | 0.289 | 0.77 [0.31; 1.91] | 0.569 |
| | 1.42 [0.51; 3.93] | 0.499 | 5.40 [2.58; 11.29] | <0.001 |
| Chromatin-Spliceosome vs. | 2.52 [1.58; 4.03] | <0.001 | 2.38 [1.55; 3.66] | <0.001 |
| No Class vs. | 2.31 [1.31; 4.05] | 0.004 | 2.71 [1.66; 4.44] | <0.001 |
| Midostaurin | ||||
| CBF vs. | 0.99 [0.31; 3.20] | 0.985 | 0.89 [0.32; 2.44] | 0.816 |
| | 2.45 [1.11; 5.42] | 0.027 | 2.74 [1.37; 5.47] | 0.004 |
| Chromatin-Spliceosome vs. | 2.02 [1.22; 3.34] | 0.006 | 1.49 [0.96; 2.32] | 0.073 |
| No Class vs. | 1.96 [1.14; 3.36] | 0.014 | 2.28 [1.48; 3.51] | <0.001 |
A hazard ratio of >1 indicates a higher and a hazard ratio of <1 a lower risk of death or event, respectively.
CBF Core-binding factor AML, CI. 95 95% confidence interval, CR1 first complete remission, ECOG Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group, HR hazard ratio, HCT hematopoietic cell transplantation, WBC white blood cell count.