MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Prognostic Significance of FLT3 and NPM1 Mutations in Adults of Age 18–60 with De Novo Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML) on SWOG S0106 Study: A Study by FHCRC and SWOG

2011· article· en· W2979755727 on OpenAlexaff
Era L. Pogosova‐Agadjanyan, Kenneth J. Kopecky, Stephen H. Petersdorf, Harry P. Erba, Richard M. Stone, Soheil Meshinchi, Thomas J. Nevill, Jerald P. Radich, Leif Stenke, Marilyn L. Slovak, Robert K. Stuart, Martin S. Tallman, Cheryl L. Willman, Rebecca M. Mortensen, Breanna L. Wentz, Frederick R. Appelbaum, Derek L. Stirewalt

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Myeloid Leukemia Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNPM1Internal medicineMedicineOncologyUnivariate analysisGemtuzumab ozogamicinMyeloid leukemiaProportional hazards modelMinimal residual diseaseBone marrowBiologyMultivariate analysisGeneticsGeneCD33Stem cell

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Abstract 2520 INTRODUCTION. Age, cytogenetics, FLT3 and NPM1 mutations are the most significant prognostic factors (PFs) for adult AML treated with standard regimens, but the predictive significance of FLT3 and NPM1 with contemporary treatments is unknown. We examined the clinical significance of NPM1 and FLT3 mutations in adult de novo AML pts enrolled on SWOG study S0106. METHODS. S0106 was a randomized phase III clinical trial for pts of age 18–60 with de novo non-M3 AML, evaluating the effects of adding Gemtuzumab Ozogamicin (GO) to standard induction therapy (Cytosine Arabinoside and Daunomycin, AD), and of post-consolidation GO vs. no additional therapy (ASH, 2009, Abstract 790). Samples from 198 of the 600 eligible pts were evaluated. Analyses for nucleotide insertions in exon 12 of the NPM1 gene and internal tandem duplications (ITD) within exons 14–15 of FLT3 were performed using fragment analyses in diagnostic bone marrow (BM, N=190) and peripheral blood (PB, N=8) samples. Mutant/wild-type (WT) allelic ratios (AR) were computed for all mutations. Effects of mutations and other PFs on complete response (CR), resistant disease (RD), overall survival (OS) and relapse-free survival (RFS) were analyzed by logistic and Cox regression. P-values are 2-sided. RESULTS. Patient characteristics and outcomes are shown in Table 1. In univariate analyses, NPM1-Mut pts had significantly higher CR (81% vs. 58%, P=.0018) and lower RD (13% vs. 28%, P=.028) rates, better OS (64% vs. 47%, P=.045) and RFS (54% vs. 41%, P=.50). FLT3-ITD was not associated with CR or RD, but was associated with poorer OS (hazard ratio [HR] 2.28, P=.0011) and RFS (HR 2.74, P=.0009). FLT3-ITD length (range 18–366, median 46), FLT3 AR (range 0.18–8.2, median 0.98), and NPM1 AR (range 0.2–1.0, median 0.8) were not associated with CR, RD, or OS, but RFS tended to be lower with higher ITD length (P=.076). In multivariate analyses with other PFs, neither NPM1 nor FLT3 was associated with CR or RD rates, however the combined effects of FLT3 and NPM1 identified 3 mutation risk groups for OS (P=.0044, Fig 1A) and RFS (P=.0003, Fig 1B), since NPM1 did not significantly affect outcomes within the FLT3-ITD pts. These risk groups are FLT3-WT/NPM1-Mut (Good Risk: 3-yr OS 82%, RFS 69%), FLT3-WT/NPM1-WT (Intermediate Risk: OS 49%, RFS 43%), and FLT3-ITD (Poor Risk: OS 29%, RFS 14%). The impact of adding GO to induction therapy was examined within each risk group. In each risk group, CR rates were higher in the AD+GO arm, though not significantly so. Likewise, the RD rates were lower in the AD+GO arm, but this difference was significant only in the largest group: Intermediate Risk, FLT3-WT/NPM1-WT, 17% vs. 34% (P=.026). Treatment arm did not significantly affect OS and RFS in any mutation risk group. CONCLUSION. This study confirmed prognostic effects of FLT3 and NPM1 mutations in de novo AML pts treated with AD or AD+GO. Analyses of the joint impact of NPM1 and FLT3 mutations do not rule out the possibility that they act independently. With the small numbers of pts in the “good” and “poor” risk groups, there was no clear evidence that mutation status predicts clinical benefit from adding GO to therapy. We are evaluating additional samples and will update these results as data matures. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.257 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood→Same topicAcute Myeloid Leukemia Research→French-language works237,207→