Abstract
The current European Leukemia Net guidelines (ELN22) classify AML patients with intermediate-risk cytogenetics and MDS-associated mutations (MDSm, mutations in ASXL1, BCOR, EZH2, RUNX1, SF3B1, SRSF2, STAG2, U2AF1, ZRSR2) as adverse-risk but do not use MDSm+ to alter the risk stratification of patients who otherwise classify as favorable-risk. NPM1 mutations (NPM1+) are one of the most common alterations in AML and remain a favorable-risk biomarker for patients without co-occurring FLT3-ITD mutations or adverse-risk cytogenetics (NPM1+/ITD-/ARcyto-). However, prior studies have shown that older patients (≥65 years) with favorable-risk AML, including NPM1+/ITD-/ARcyto- genotype, have significantly higher relapse rates and decreased survival despite receiving comparable intensive chemotherapy regimens to their younger counterparts. Given that MDSm frequency increases with age in patients with NPM1+ AML, it raises the question as to whether MDSm contribute to poorer outcomes in older patients. To date, there have been differing results in retrospective studies examining the effect of MDSm on NPM1+ AML. Some cohorts demonstrate worse outcomes in those that have NPM1+/MDSm+ AML (Chan et al., Blood Adv. 2024), whereas others do not show a significant difference in NPM1+ AML with or without MDSm (Eckardt et al., Leukemia 2023; Othman et al., Blood 2024; Ruhnke et al., Blood Adv. 2025).
We examined the mutational landscape in a large group of pre-treatment, diagnostic specimens from 271 patients, which included 119 patients enrolled in SWOG clinical trials (SWOG-9031, SWOG-9333, S0106, and S0112), 96 patients from the UW/FHCC Hematopoietic Repository, and 56 patients from the BeatAML cohort. All patients were treated with curative intent as per standard practice or on clinical trials and had adequate cytogenetic information and long-term follow-up data. Event-free and overall survival (EFS, OS) were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using Cox regression models stratified by cohort. MDSm+ occurred in 17% of patients, with the most common mutations being in SRSF2 (7%) and SF3B1 (3%).
To assess the impact of MDSm on outcomes of favorable-risk NPM1+ AML, we performed univariate analyses comparing OS and EFS for NPM1+ AML grouped by ELN22 favorable risk/MDSm-, ELN22 favorable/MDSm+, and ELN22 intermediate/adverse risk. Compared to NPM1+/MDSm- (n=116), favorable-risk NPM1+/MDSm+ (n=33) had worse OS with HR 2.0 [95% CI (1.1, 3.3), p=0.008] and had similar OS to those that are classified as ELN22 intermediate/adverse risk (n=122). There was no significant difference in EFS or complete remission rates between NPM1+ favorable risk with and without MDSm (p=0.36 and p=0.6, respectively). When we grouped the ELN22 favorable risk patients by age (<65 years vs. 65+ years), MDSm+ in younger patients did not show a difference for OS (HR 0.99, p=0.98). Older ELN22 favorable-risk patients (≥65) had poor OS regardless of presence of MDSm compared to younger MDSm- patients: older MDSm- (n=91) with HR 2.4, 95% CI (1.3, 4.6), p=0.005 and older MDSm+ (n=25) with HR 3.5, 95% CI (1.9, 6.3), p<0.0001. There was a trend toward worse OS in MDSm+ compared to MDSm- older patients, but this was not statistically significant (HR 1.42, p=0.33). Since most MDSm are in splicing factor genes (SF3B1, SRSF2, U2AF1, ZRSR2), we examined the effect of splicing factor mutations vs. other MDSm+ in ELN22 favorable risk and did not find a significant difference in OS (HR=1.01, p=0.97). Those with non-splicing MDSm+ had worse EFS compared to MDSm- and splicing MDSm+ (HR 4.12, p=0.0037), although no difference in OS.
In this study, MDSm+ in the context of favorable-risk NPM1+ AML are associated with worse OS in a univariate analysis. However, this difference is likely due to the increased prevalence of MDSm with increasing age and overall worse outcomes of NPM1+ AML in older patients. When stratified by age, older NPM1+ AML patients had worse OS than younger NPM1+ patients overall, although presence of MDSm trended toward even worse OS in older patients. In younger patients, MDSm+ are not associated with a significant difference in OS, which is a similar finding compared to prior studies. Our findings suggest that NPM1+ AML is not necessarily “favorable-risk” in older patients, particularly with concurrent MDSm. Therefore, further understanding of the underlying biology of age in the context of NPM1+ AML is needed to improve outcomes for older patients.
