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

      Predictors of survival outcomes in patients with MECOM EVI1 rearrangement aberrations in AML or MDS.

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisher
      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

          e19078

          Background: MECOM (EVI1) rearrangements in MDS/AML are rare and carry an unfavorable prognosis. Although allogeneic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT) may prolong survival, factors impacting outcomes are not known. We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients with MECOM (EVI1) to associate clinicopathologic variables with prognosis. Methods: This study was approved by the Mayo Clinic IRB. Patients >18 years of age with MDS or AML and MECOM EVI1 at Mayo Clinic between 01/2012 and 12/2022 were included. Response was defined by ELN criteria. Intensive chemotherapy was defined as 7+3 or high dose cytarabine. Non-intensive chemotherapy included hypomethylating agents with or without venetoclax. Median overall survival (OS) and median leukemia free survival (LFS) were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Outcome differences between sub-groups and univariate analyses were assessed with Cox regression. Results: Sixty patients met criteria for inclusion. Sixty-three percent (n = 38) were male and the median age at diagnosis was 67.8 yrs (range, 56 – 75). Eighty percent had AML (n = 48) and 18% had MDS (n = 11). Sixty-seven percent of patients had secondary AML/MDS (n = 40). Inv(3)/t(3;3) was present in 65% (n = 39) and t(3;21) was present in 12% (n = 7). Thirty-eight percent (n = 23) of patients had cooccurring monosomy 7 or 7q deletion and 5% had complex karyotype (n = 3). SF3B1 was the most common cooccurring mutation in 31% (n = 10), followed by KRAS in 19% (n = 6). Thirty-eight percent of patients (n = 23) received intensive chemotherapy. Complete response (CR) rates were 36% with intensive treatment (n = 8) and 4% with non-intensive treatment (n = 1; p = 0.007). Thirty percent (n = 18) underwent SCT (78% in CR1 and 22% in CR2) and of those, myeloablative conditioning (MAC) was used in 38% while 61% received reduced intensity conditioning (RIC). The mOS in the entire cohort was 11 months (95% CI 6.2, 17). Patients who received a SCT had longer mOS compared to patients who did not (19 vs 6.2 months, HR = 0.31, 95% CI 0.16,0.64; p = 0.001). AML-MRC was a poor prognostic factor in the HCST group for OS (HR = 4.23, 95% CI 1.02, 17.5, p = 0.047). Intensive vs. non-intensive chemotherapy, response prior to transplant (CR vs. no CR), or having 2 or more mutations on NGS did not significantly impact OS or LFS. Conclusions: In line with previous reports, allo-HSCT was associated with improved survival outcomes. Our results showed a high frequency of secondary AML/MDS, but only AML-MRC was associated with decreased survival outcomes. Regardless of therapy type, outcomes were poor. Novel therapies are urgently needed for these patients.

          Related collections

          Author and article information

          Journal
          Journal of Clinical Oncology
          JCO
          American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)
          0732-183X
          1527-7755
          June 01 2023
          June 01 2023
          : 41
          : 16_suppl
          : e19078
          Affiliations
          [1 ]Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, AZ
          [2 ]Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ
          [3 ]Division of Hematology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
          [4 ]Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL
          [5 ]Mayo Clinic Jacksonville, Jacksonville, FL
          [6 ]Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
          [7 ]Division of Hematopathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
          [8 ]Mayo Clinic in Arizona, Phoenix, AZ
          Article
          10.1200/JCO.2023.41.16_suppl.e19078
          ac49d697-dfde-4cfa-917c-72b6c666de10
          © 2023
          History

          Comments

          Comment on this article