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 more
Create an account and access these new features:
Bookmark content to read later
Select your specific areas of interest
View aml content recommended for you
Prognostic factors in patients with NPM1-mutated AML: Analysis from the AML17 and AML19 trials
|
The phase III AML17 and AML19 trials evaluated intensive chemotherapy in newly diagnosed, younger adult patients with AML or high-risk MDS.1 An analysis of patients from these trials with NPM1-mutated AML (n = 1,357) assessed the impact of baseline molecular and clinical features, postinduction MRD status, and treatment intensity on outcomes. Results from this analysis were published in Blood by Othman et al.1 |
| Key learnings |
| Multivariable analysis revealed that age (HR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.13–1.39), WBC (HR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.02–1.15), adverse cytogenetics (HR, 2.06; 95% CI, 1.00-4.24), NPM1 non-ABD (HR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.22–2.21), FLT3-ITD (HR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.01–1.63), DNMT3A (HR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.32–2.05), and WT1 (HR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.27–2.38) were associated with worse OS, while treatment with FLAG-Ida (HR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.42–0.81) and GO (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.64–1.00) were associated with improved OS. |
| FLT3-ITD (HR, 2.62; 95% CI, 1.60–4.34), DNMT3A (HR, 2.55; 95% CI, 1.56–4.26), WT1 (HR, 2.16; 95% CI, 1.15–3.99), and NPM1 non-ABD (HR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.01–3.83) mutations were associated with higher rates of MRD positivity. Among patients who achieved MRD negativity, DNMT3A (HR, 2.01; 95% CI, 1.40–2.89), WT1 (HR, 1.88; 95% CI,1.11–3.18), NPM1 non-ABD (HR, 2.54; 95% CI, 1.57–4.11), IDH1 (HR, 2.00, 95% CI, 1.32–3.03), and IDH2 (HR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.19–2.76) mutations were associated with higher relapse rates. |
| Achieving MRD negativity in the PB after Cycle 2 was associated with improved outcomes; MRD-negative patients had a 3-year OS rate of 79% vs 40% for MRD-positive patients, and a CIR of 29% vs 65%. In the multivariable analysis, MRD negativity was strongly associated with OS (HR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.23–0.43). |
| When compared with all other regimens, FLAG-Ida was associated with increased MRD negativity (87% vs 79%; p = 0.009), reduced relapse rates both overall (21% vs 40%; p < 0.001) and in MRD-negative patients (16% vs 34%; p < 0.001), and improved 3-year OS rates overall (79% vs 63%; p < 0.001) and in MRD negative patients (88% vs 76%; p = 0.003). These benefits were observed across all subgroups, particularly in patients with adverse features. |
| This analysis identified several factors associated with outcomes in patients with NPM1-mutated AML. MRD negativity in the PB after Cycle 2 was a strong independent prognostic factor, suggesting that routine MRD monitoring could guide clinical decisions. |
Abbreviations: AML, acute myeloid leukemia; CI, confidence interval; CIR, cumulative incidence of relapse; FLAG-Ida, fludarabine, cytarabine, granulocyte colony-stimulating factor, and idarubicin; GO, gemtuzumab ozogamicin; HR hazard ratio; ITD, internal tandem duplication; MDS, myelodysplastic syndromes; MRD, measurable residual disease; OS, overall survival; PB, peripheral blood; WBC, white blood cell count.
References
Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements:
The content was clear and easy to understand
The content addressed the learning objectives
The content was relevant to my practice
I will change my clinical practice as a result of this content
