A real-world analysis of clinical outcomes in AML with myelodysplasia-related changes: a comparison of ICC and WHO-HAEM5 criteria

ABSTRACT

The proposed fifth edition of the World Health Organization classification of hematolymphoid tumors (WHO-HAEM5) and International Consensus Classification (ICC) provide different definitions of acute myeloid leukemia with myelodysplasia-related genetics (AML-MR). We conducted a retrospective study which included a cohort of 432 patients, with 354 patients fulfilling WHO-HAEM5 criteria for WHO-AML-MR or 276 patients fulfilling ICC criteria for ICC-AML-MR by gene mutation or cytogenetics (ICC-AML-MR-M/CG). The clinicopathological features were largely similar, irrespective of the classification used, except for higher rates of complex karyotype, monosomy 17, TP53 mutations, and fewer RUNX1 mutations in the WHO-AML-MR group. TP53 mutations were associated with distinct clinicopathological features and dismal outcomes (hazard ratio [HR], 2.98; P < .001). ICC-AML-MR-M/CG group had superior outcome compared with the WHO-AML-MR group (HR, 0.80, P = .032), largely in part due to defining TP53 mutated AML as a standalone entity. In the intensively-treated group, WHO-AML-MR had significantly worse outcomes than AML by differentiation (HR, 1.97; P = .024). Based on ICC criteria, ICC-AML-MR-M/CG had more inferior outcomes compared to AML not otherwise specified (HR, 2.11; P = .048 and HR, 2.55; P = .028; respectively). Furthermore, changing the order of genetic abnormalities defining AML-MR (ie, by gene mutations or cytogenetics) did not significantly affect clinical outcomes. ICC-AML-MR-M/CG showed similar outcomes regardless of the order of assignment. We propose to harmonize the 2 classifications by excluding TP53 mutations from WHO-HAEM5 defined AML-MR group and combining AML-MR defined by gene mutations and cytogenetics to form a unified group.

AML with CEBPA mutations: A comparison of ICC and WHO-HAEM5 criteria in patients with 20% or more blasts

AML with CEBPA mutation and AML with in-frame bZIP CEBPA mutations define favorable-risk disease entities in the proposed 5th edition of the World Health Organization Classification (WHO-HAEM5) and the International Consensus Classification (ICC), respectively. However, the impact of these new classifications on clinical practice remains unclear. We sought to assess the differences between the ICC and WHO-HAEM5 for AML with CEBPA mutation. 741 AML patients were retrospectively analyzed. Cox proportional-hazard regression was used to identify factors predictive of outcome. A validation cohort from the UK-NCRI clinical trials was used to confirm our findings. 81 (11%) AML patients had CEBPA mutations. 39 (48%) patients met WHO-HAEM5 criteria for AML with CEBPA mutation, among which 30 (77%) had biallelic CEBPA mutations and 9 (23%) had a single bZIP mutation. Among the 39 patients who met WHO-HAEM5 criteria, 25 (64%) also met ICC criteria. Compared to patients only meeting WHO-HAEM5 criteria, patients with in-frame bZIP CEBPA mutations (ie. meeting both WHO-HAEM5 and ICC criteria) were younger, had higher bone marrow blast percentages and CEBPA mutation burden, infrequently harboured 2022 ELN high-risk genetic features and co-mutations in other genes, and had superior outcomes. The associations in clinicopathological features and outcomes between the CEBPA-mutated groups were validated in the UK-NCRI cohort. Our study indicates that in-frame bZIP CEBPA mutations are the critical molecular aberrations associated with favorable outcomes in AML patients treated with curative intent chemotherapy. Compared to WHO-HAEM5, the ICC identifies a more homogenous group of CEBPA-mutated AML patients with favorable outcomes.