Refinement of cytogenetic classification in acute myeloid leukemia: determination of prognostic significance of rare recurring chromosomal abnormalities among 5876 …

D Grimwade, RK Hills, AV Moorman… - Blood, The Journal …, 2010 - ashpublications.org
D Grimwade, RK Hills, AV Moorman, H Walker, S Chatters, AH Goldstone, K Wheatley…
Blood, The Journal of the American Society of Hematology, 2010ashpublications.org
Diagnostic karyotype provides the framework for risk-stratification schemes in acute myeloid
leukemia (AML); however, the prognostic significance of many rare recurring cytogenetic
abnormalities remains uncertain. We studied the outcomes of 5876 patients (16-59 years of
age) who were classified into 54 cytogenetic subgroups and treated in the Medical
Research Council trials. In multivariable analysis, t (15; 17)(q22; q21), t (8; 21)(q22; q22),
and inv (16)(p13q22)/t (16; 16)(p13; q22) were the only abnormalities found to predict a …
Abstract
Diagnostic karyotype provides the framework for risk-stratification schemes in acute myeloid leukemia (AML); however, the prognostic significance of many rare recurring cytogenetic abnormalities remains uncertain. We studied the outcomes of 5876 patients (16-59 years of age) who were classified into 54 cytogenetic subgroups and treated in the Medical Research Council trials. In multivariable analysis, t(15;17)(q22;q21), t(8;21)(q22;q22), and inv(16)(p13q22)/t(16;16)(p13;q22) were the only abnormalities found to predict a relatively favorable prognosis (P < .001). In patients with t(15;17) treated with extended all-trans retinoic acid and anthracycline-based chemotherapy, additional cytogenetic changes did not have an impact on prognosis. Similarly, additional abnormalities did not have a significant adverse effect in t(8;21) AML; whereas in patients with inv(16), the presence of additional changes, particularly +22, predicted a better outcome (P = .004). In multivariable analyses, various abnormalities predicted a significantly poorer outcome, namely abn(3q) (excluding t(3;5)(q25;q34)), inv(3)(q21q26)/t(3;3)(q21;q26), add(5q)/del(5q), −5, −7, add(7q)/del(7q), t(6;11)(q27;q23), t(10;11)(p11∼13;q23), other t(11q23) (excluding t(9;11)(p21∼22;q23) and t(11;19)(q23;p13)), t(9;22)(q34;q11), −17, and abn(17p). Patients lacking the aforementioned favorable or adverse aberrations but with 4 or more unrelated abnormalities also exhibited a significantly poorer prognosis (designated “complex” karyotype group). These data allow more reliable prediction of outcome for patients with rarer abnormalities and may facilitate the development of consensus in reporting of karyotypic information in clinical trials involving younger adults with AML. This study is registered at http://www.isrctn.org as ISRCTN55678797 and ISRCTN17161961.
ashpublications.org