Kristensen, Thomas Kielsgaard

Abstract Patients with core-binding factor (CBF) acute myeloid leukemia (AML), caused by either t(8;21)(q22;q22) or inv(16)(p13q22)/t(16;16)(p13;q22), have higher complete remission rates and longer survival than patients with other subtypes of AML. However, ∼40% of patients relapse, and the literature suggests that patients with inv(16) fare differently from those with t(8;21). We retrospectively analyzed 537 patients with CBF-AML, focusing on additional cytogenetic aberrations to examine their impact on clinical outcomes. Trisomies of chromosomes 8, 21, or 22 were significantly more common in patients with inv(16)/t(16;16): 16% vs 7%, 6% vs 0%, and 17% vs 0%, respectively. In contrast, del(9q) and loss of a sex chromosome were more frequent in patients with t(8;21): 15% vs 0.4% for del(9q), 37% vs 0% for loss of X in females, and 44% vs 5% for loss of Y in males. Hyperdiploidy was more frequent in patients with inv(16) (25% vs 9%, whereas hypodiploidy was more frequent in patients with t(8;21) (37% vs 3%. In multivariable analyses (adjusted for age, white blood counts at diagnosis, and KIT mutation status), trisomy 8 was associated with improved overall survival (OS) in inv(16), whereas the presence of other chromosomal abnormalities (not trisomy 8) was associated with decreased OS. In patients with t(8;21), hypodiploidy was associated with improved disease-free survival; hyperdiploidy and del(9q) were associated with improved OS. KIT mutation (either positive or not tested, compared with negative) conferred poor prognoses in univariate analysis only in patients with t(8;21).

AbstractBackgroundAlthough the prognosis of core‐binding factor (CBF) acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is better than other subtypes of AML, 30% of patients still relapse and may require allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (alloHCT). However, there is no validated widely accepted scoring system to predict patient subsets with higher risk of relapse.MethodsEleven centers in the US and Europe evaluated 247 patients with t(8;21)(q22;q22).ResultsComplete remission (CR) rate was high (92.7%), yet relapse occurred in 27.1% of patients. A total of 24.7% of patients received alloHCT. The median disease‐free (DFS) and overall (OS) survival were 20.8 and 31.2 months, respectively. Age, KIT D816V mutated (11.3%) or nontested (36.4%) compared with KIT D816V wild type (52.5%), high white blood cell counts (WBC), and pseudodiploidy compared with hyper‐ or hypodiploidy were included in a scoring system (named I‐CBFit). DFS rate at 2 years was 76% for patients with a low‐risk I‐CBFit score compared with 36% for those with a high‐risk I‐CBFit score (P < 0.0001). Low‐ vs high‐risk OS at 2 years was 89% vs 51% (P < 0.0001).ConclusionsI‐CBFit composed of readily available risk factors can be useful to tailor the therapy of patients, especially for whom alloHCT is not need in CR1 (ie, patients with a low‐risk I‐CBFit score).

AbstractMastocytosis is an emerging differential diagnosis in patients with more or less specific mediator‐related symptoms. In some of these patients, typical skin lesions are found and the diagnosis of mastocytosis can be established. In other cases, however, skin lesions are absent, which represents a diagnostic challenge. In the light of this unmet need, we developed a diagnostic algorithm for patients with suspected mastocytosis. In adult patients with typical lesions of mastocytosis in the skin, a bone marrow (BM) biopsy should be considered, regardless of the basal serum tryptase concentration. In adults without skin lesions who suffer from mediator‐related or other typical symptoms, the basal tryptase level is an important parameter. In those with a slightly increased tryptase level, additional investigations, including a sensitive KIT mutation analysis of blood leucocytes or measurement of urinary histamine metabolites, may be helpful. In adult patients in whom (i) KIT D816V is detected and/or (ii) the basal serum tryptase level is clearly increased (>25–30 ng/ml) and/or (iii) other clinical or laboratory features suggest the presence of ‘occult’ mastocytosis or another haematologic neoplasm, a BM investigation is recommended. In the absence of KIT D816V and other signs or symptoms of mastocytosis or another haematopoietic disease, no BM investigation is required, but the clinical course and tryptase levels are monitored in the follow‐up. In paediatric patients, a BM investigation is usually not required, even if the tryptase level is increased. Although validation is required, it can be expected that the algorithm proposed herein will facilitate the management of patients with suspected mastocytosis and help avoid unnecessary referrals and investigations.