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 - PubMed (original) (raw)

. 2011 Feb 24;117(8):2469-75.

doi: 10.1182/blood-2010-09-307280. Epub 2010 Dec 21.

Lars Bullinger, Andrea Corbacioglu, Mathijs A Sanders, Claudia A J Erpelinck, Bas J Wouters, Sonja C van der Poel-van de Luytgaarde, Frederik Damm, Jürgen Krauter, Arnold Ganser, Richard F Schlenk, Bob Löwenberg, Ruud Delwel, Hartmut Döhner, Peter J M Valk, Konstanze Döhner

Affiliations

Free article

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

Erdogan Taskesen et al. Blood. 2011.

Free article

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.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

Publication types

MeSH terms

Substances

LinkOut - more resources