Analysis of response in patients with favorable, intermediate, and adverse-risk rrAML
| Risk assessment . | ORR/CR, favorable risk profile, % (n) . | ORR/CR, intermediate risk (I + II) profile, % (n) . | ORR/CR, adverse risk profile, % (n) . | P value (ORR/CR)† . |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Risk classification | ||||
| ELN 2010 | 22.2/0 (9) | 55.8/32.6 (43) | 30.0/10.0 (20) | .7322/.8493 |
| ELN 2017 | 37.5/0 (8) | 65.2/43.5 (23) | 34.1/14.6 (41) | .2049/.5816 |
| Grimwade | 33.3/0 (6) | 66.7/58.3 (12) | 40.7/16.7 (54) | .6121/.4487 |
| Molecular classification | ||||
| Papaemmanuil* | 80.0/60.0 (5) | 36.4/9.0 (11) | 42.8/21.4 (56) | .4631/.2605 |
| Risk assessment . | ORR/CR, favorable risk profile, % (n) . | ORR/CR, intermediate risk (I + II) profile, % (n) . | ORR/CR, adverse risk profile, % (n) . | P value (ORR/CR)† . |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Risk classification | ||||
| ELN 2010 | 22.2/0 (9) | 55.8/32.6 (43) | 30.0/10.0 (20) | .7322/.8493 |
| ELN 2017 | 37.5/0 (8) | 65.2/43.5 (23) | 34.1/14.6 (41) | .2049/.5816 |
| Grimwade | 33.3/0 (6) | 66.7/58.3 (12) | 40.7/16.7 (54) | .6121/.4487 |
| Molecular classification | ||||
| Papaemmanuil* | 80.0/60.0 (5) | 36.4/9.0 (11) | 42.8/21.4 (56) | .4631/.2605 |
ORR (CR, CRi, CRp, MLFS, and PR) by risk assessment is based on cytogenetic testing, and mutations are identified by FoundationOne Heme panel according to ELN 2010,29 ELN 2017,28 Grimwade et al,26 and Papaemmanuil et al.13
Papaemmanuil risk was inferred from survival analysis of molecular classifications in which the mCEBPA and mIDH2-R172 groups were considered favorable; mNPM1 and others were considered intermediate; and chromosome 3 inversion, Chromatin-Spliceosome, MLL fusions, and mTP53-aneuploidy were considered adverse.
P values were for the contingency test for the logical trend from favorable to adverse risk.