Table 3

Multivariable regression analysis for outcome according to the MN1 expression status in all older patients with de novo CN-AML, and in those 70 years of age or older

End pointVariables in final modelsOR/HR95% CIP
All patients 
    CR* MN1, low vs high 3.16 1.29, 7.70 .01 
BAALC, low vs high 4.39 1.85, 10.44 < .001 
WBC, each 2-fold increase 0.76 0.62, 0.93 .01 
    EFS MN1, low vs high 0.54 0.34, 0.86 .03 
BAALC, low vs high 0.43 0.27, 0.68 .002 
WBC, each 2-fold increase 1.22 1.09, 1.35 < .001 
Platelets, each 50-unit increase 1.15 1.05, 1.25 .002 
Patients 70 y or older 
    CR MN1, low vs high 3.97 1.22, 12.90 .02 
    OS§ Interaction of MN1 and NPM1   .29 
Mutated NPM10.41 0.17, 0.97 .04 
    MN1, low vs high    
Wild-type NPM1  .58 
    MN1, low vs high    
    FS Interaction of MN1 and NPM1   .14 
Mutated NPM10.37 0.15, 0.88 .02 
    MN1, low vs high    
Wild-type NPM1  .87 
    MN1, low vs high    
End pointVariables in final modelsOR/HR95% CIP
All patients 
    CR* MN1, low vs high 3.16 1.29, 7.70 .01 
BAALC, low vs high 4.39 1.85, 10.44 < .001 
WBC, each 2-fold increase 0.76 0.62, 0.93 .01 
    EFS MN1, low vs high 0.54 0.34, 0.86 .03 
BAALC, low vs high 0.43 0.27, 0.68 .002 
WBC, each 2-fold increase 1.22 1.09, 1.35 < .001 
Platelets, each 50-unit increase 1.15 1.05, 1.25 .002 
Patients 70 y or older 
    CR MN1, low vs high 3.97 1.22, 12.90 .02 
    OS§ Interaction of MN1 and NPM1   .29 
Mutated NPM10.41 0.17, 0.97 .04 
    MN1, low vs high    
Wild-type NPM1  .58 
    MN1, low vs high    
    FS Interaction of MN1 and NPM1   .14 
Mutated NPM10.37 0.15, 0.88 .02 
    MN1, low vs high    
Wild-type NPM1  .87 
    MN1, low vs high    

OR > 1 (< 1) indicates higher (lower) CR rate for the higher values of the continuous variables and the first category listed for the categorical variables. HR > 1 (< 1) indicates higher (lower) risk for an event for the higher values of the continuous variables and the first category listed for the categorical variables.

*

Variables considered in the model based on univariable analyses were MN1 expression (high vs low; median cut), BAALC expression (high vs low; median cut), FLT3-ITD (positive vs negative), IDH2 (mutated vs wild-type), NPM1 (mutated vs wild-type), WBC (continuous, log base 2), and platelets (continuous, 50-unit increase).

Variables considered in the model based on univariable analyses were MN1 expression (high vs low; median cut), BAALC expression (high vs low; median cut), ERG expression (high vs low; median cut), FLT3-ITD (positive vs negative), IDH2 (mutated vs wild-type), NPM1 (mutated vs wild-type), WT1 (mutated vs wild-type), WBC (continuous, log base 2), and platelets (continuous, 50-unit increase).

Variables considered in the model based on univariable analyses were MN1 expression (high vs low; median cut), BAALC, expression (high vs low; median cut), platelets (continuous, 50-unit increase), and NPM1 (mutated vs wild-type).

§

Variables considered in the model based on univariable analyses were MN1 expression (high vs low; median cut), BAALC, expression (high vs low; median cut), IDH1 (mutated vs wild-type), NPM1 (mutated vs wild-type), and platelets.

Variables considered in the model based on univariable analyses were MN1 expression (high vs low; median cut), BAALC, expression (high vs low; median cut), IDH2 (mutated vs wild-type), NPM1 (mutated vs wild-type), and platelets.

Does not meet the proportional hazards assumption. For EFS, the HR for BAALC, high vs low (median cut), MN1, high vs low (median cut), and WBC are reported at 3 months.

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal