The aml Hub website uses a third-party service provided by Google that dynamically translates web content. Translations are machine generated, so may not be an exact or complete translation, and the aml Hub cannot guarantee the accuracy of translated content. The aml and its employees will not be liable for any direct, indirect, or consequential damages (even if foreseeable) resulting from use of the Google Translate feature. For further support with Google Translate, visit Google Translate Help.
The AML Hub is an independent medical education platform, sponsored by Astellas, Daiichi Sankyo, Johnson & Johnson, Kura Oncology and Syndax, and has been supported through educational grants from Bristol Myers Squibb and the Hippocrate Conference Institute, an association of the Servier Group. The funders are allowed no direct influence on our content. The levels of sponsorship listed are reflective of the amount of funding given. View funders.
Now you can support HCPs in making informed decisions for their patients
Your contribution helps us continuously deliver expertly curated content to HCPs worldwide. You will also have the opportunity to make a content suggestion for consideration and receive updates on the impact contributions are making to our content.
Find out moreCreate an account and access these new features:
Bookmark content to read later
Select your specific areas of interest
View aml content recommended for you
AML genomes tend to be less mutated compared to other cancers. Nevertheless, a number of mutations in AML cells involve genes which are implicated in epigenetic changes affecting gene activity and expression.1 Broadly, epigenetic functions that become dysregulated include: DNA methylation, DNA hydroxymethylation, histone acetylation, histone lysine methylation, and other histone modifications. Examples for epigenetic modifier gene mutations are DNMT3A, ETO, TET1/2, IDH1/2 and ASXL1. As epigenetic changes do not result in changes to the DNA sequence, they can be modified to some extent by targeted drug intervention.
Qingyu Xu, Department of Hematology and BMT Center, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, CN, and colleagues, aimed to look at treatment with a hypomethylating agent, decitabine, and whether epigenetic changes predict response. They studied patients with intermediate risk AML (IR-AML) as they had noted that patients frequently have epigenetic modifier gene mutations (EMMs) such as DNMT3A, TET1/2, IDH1/2 and ASXL1.2 They aimed to assess how IR-AML patients (n=83) responded to the addition of hypomethylating agent (HMA) decitabine, to CAG (cytarabine, aclarubicin and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor; G-CSF) induction therapy (DCAG).
Table 2. Multivariate analysis
Abbreviations: 95% CI, 95% confidence interval; CR, complete remission; DCAG, decitabine with cytarabine, aclarubicin and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor; EFS, event-free survival; EMM (−), epigenetic modifier gene mutations-negative; EMM (+), epigenetic modifier gene mutations-positive; HR, hazard risk; ORR, overall response rate (complete remission rate + partial remission rate); OS, overall survival; RFS, relapse-free survival; RR, relative risk. | ||||
Outcomes | DCAG vs Standard induction | EMM (+) vs EMM (-) | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
EMM (+) [RR/HR, 95% CI (p)] |
EMM (−) [RR/HR, 95% CI (p)] |
DCAG regimen [RR/HR, 95% CI (p)] |
Standard induction regimens [RR/HR, 95% CI (p)] |
|
OS | 0.12, 0.02–1.71 (0.02) | 2.56, 0.60–10.88 (0.20) | 0.10, 0.01–0.97 (0.047) | 6.93, 1.19–40.34 (0.03) |
EFS | 0.05, 0.01–0.34 (0.002) | 0.62, 0.16–2.50 (0.51) | 0.16, 0.03–0.90 (0.04) | 7.01, 1.40–35.15 (0.02) |
RFS | 0.02, 0.002–0.41 (0.01) | 0.40, 0.06–2.82 (0.36) | 0.06, 0.003–1.12 (0.06) | 12.39, 1.13–135.85 (0.04) |
References