Mutational profile, outcomes, and impact of allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in adult patients with acute myeloid leukemia and inconclusive cytogenetic analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Inconclusive cytogenetic analysis (IC) at baseline has been reported as a predictor of poor prognosis in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML). The mutational profile in this group of patients, and its impact on outcomes have not been reported. Methods We retrospectively analyzed adult patients (≥18 years) with newly diagnosed AML treated with intensive induction chemotherapy between 2015 and 2019. Patients with any documented cytogenetic abnormalities were excluded. Targeted next generation sequencing (NGS) was performed in all patients. Baseline characteristics, mutation profile, and outcomes were compared between patients with normal cytogenetics(NC) and those with IC. Results Sixty‐one patients (males 39.3%; median age 59 years) had IC at diagnosis. The proportion of patients with mutations in genes with proven prognostic impact were not different between AML patients with IC and NC. AML patients with NC were more likely to harbor the prognostically favorable NPM1 mut / FLT3‐ITD wt mutational combination conferring “favorable” risk status. As a result, a larger proportion of patients in the IC group underwent allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo HCT; 54.1% vs. 39.6%; p = .02). The 2‐year RFS (55.9% vs. 58.5%; p = .29) and OS (61.9% vs. 66.9%; p = .48) were similar in IC and NC patients. There was no difference in survival of patients who underwent allo HCT when compared with patients who did not ( p = .99). Conclusions Inconclusive cytogenetic analysis may not be an independent prognostic indicator in AML. In such patients, molecular abnormalities detected through NGS or whole genome sequencing are more likely to be informative.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".