19
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Prognostic impact, concurrent genetic mutations, and gene expression features of AML with CEBPA mutations in a cohort of 1182 cytogenetically normal AML patients: further evidence for CEBPA double mutant AML as a distinctive disease entity.

      Blood
      Adolescent, Adult, CCAAT-Enhancer-Binding Protein-alpha, genetics, Classification, Cohort Studies, Gene Expression Profiling, methods, Humans, Leukemia, Myeloid, Acute, classification, diagnosis, Middle Aged, Molecular Diagnostic Techniques, standards, Mutation, physiology, Prognosis, Sensitivity and Specificity, Survival Analysis, Treatment Outcome, Young Adult

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          We evaluated concurrent gene mutations, clinical outcome, and gene expression signatures of CCAAT/enhancer binding protein alpha (CEBPA) double mutations (CEBPA(dm)) versus single mutations (CEBPA(sm)) in 1182 cytogenetically normal acute myeloid leukemia (AML) patients (16-60 years of age). We identified 151 (12.8%) patients with CEBPA mutations (91 CEBPA(dm) and 60 CEBPA(sm)). The incidence of germline mutations was 7% (5 of 71), including 3 C-terminal mutations. CEBPA(dm) patients had a lower frequency of concurrent mutations than CEBPA(sm) patients (P < .0001). Both, groups were associated with a favorable outcome compared with CEBPA(wt) (5-year overall survival [OS] 63% and 56% vs 39%; P < .0001 and P = .05, respectively). However, in multivariable analysis only CEBPA(dm) was a prognostic factor for favorable OS outcome (hazard ratio [HR] 0.36, P < .0001; event-free survival, HR 0.41, P < .0001; relapse-free survival, HR 0.55, P = .001). Outcome in CEBPA(sm) is dominated by concurrent NPM1 and/or FLT3 internal tandem duplication mutations. Unsupervised and supervised GEP analyses showed that CEBPA(dm) AML (n = 42), but not CEBPA(sm) AML (n = 18), expressed a unique gene signature. A 25-probe set prediction signature for CEBPA(dm) AML showed 100% sensitivity and specificity. Based on these findings, we propose that CEBPA(dm) should be clearly defined from CEBPA(sm) AML and considered as a separate entity in the classification of AML.

          Related collections

          Author and article information

          Comments

          Comment on this article