We retrospectively assessed whether normalized bone marrow WT1 levels could be used for risk stratification in a consecutive series of 584 acute myeloid leukemia (AML) patients. A cutoff value of 5065 copies at diagnosis identified two prognostic groups (overall survival (OS): 44 ± 3 vs 36 ± 3%, P=0.023; leukemia-free survival (LFS): 47 ± 3 vs 36 ± 4%, P=0.038; and cumulative incidence of relapse (CIR): 37 ± 3 vs 47 ± 4%, P=:0.043). Three groups were identified on the basis of WT1 levels post-induction: Group 0 (WT1 between 0 and 17.5 copies, 134 patients, OS: 59 ± 4%, LFS:59 ± 4% and CIR: 26 ± 4%); Group 1 (WT1 between 17.6 and 170.5 copies, 160 patients, OS: 48 ± 5%, LFS:41 ± 4% and CIR: 45 ± 4%); and Group 2 (WT1 >170.5 copies, 71 patients, OS: 23 ± 6%, LFS: 19 ± 7% and CIR: 68 ± 8%) (P<0.001). Post-intensification samples distinguished three groups: patients with WT1 >100 copies (47 patients, 16%); an intermediate group of patients with WT1 between 10 and 100 copies (148 patients, 52%); and a third group with WT1 <10 copies (92 patients, 32%). Outcomes differed significantly in terms of OS (30 ± 7%, 59 ± 4%, 72 ± 5%), LFS (24 ± 7%, 46 ± 4%, 65 ± 5%) and relapse probability (CIR 72 ± 7%, 45 ± 4%, 25 ± 5%), all P<0.001. WT1 levels in bone marrow assayed using the standardized ELN method provide relevant prognostic information in de novo AML.

We underscore the urgent need for early recognition and diagnosis of CDI in cancer patients. Our findings indicate a probable association between antibiotic use and CDI incidence, at least in certain cancer, such as breast cancer.

No abstract

The negative prognostic impact of FLT3-ITD in patients with acute myeloid leukemia with mutated NPM1 (AML-NPM1) is restricted to patients with a higher FLT3-ITD allelic ratio (≥0.5; FLT3high) and considered negligible in wild-type (FLT3wt)/low ITD ratio (FLT3low) patients. Since the co-mutation of DNMT3A (DNMT3Amut) has been suggested to negatively influence the prognosis of AML-NPM1, we analyzed DNMT3Amut impact in FLT3-ITD subsets (absent, low and high ratio). A total of 164 patients diagnosed with AML-NPM1 who received intensive chemotherapy according to two consecutive protocols (AML-03 and AML-12) were selected: 76 harboring FLT3-ITD (46%), 79 DNMT3Amut (48%), and 39 (24%) showing both mutations. Overall, DNMT3A mutational status did not show prognostic impact with comparable OS (mut vs. wt 62±6% vs. 56±6%; p=0.2), RR (22±11% vs. 31±11%; p=0.2) and LFS (65±6 vs. 54±6, p=0.1). Prognostic stratification established by FLT3-ITD (FLT3wt= FLT3low&gt; FLT3high) was independent of DNMT3A mutational status. Measurable residual disease (MRD) based on NPM1 quantitative-PCR kinetics was available in 94 patients. DNMT3Amut was associated with a higher number of mutated NPM1 transcripts following induction (p=0.012) and first consolidation (C1; p&lt;0.001). All DNMT3Amut patients were MRD positive following C1 (p&lt;0.001) and exhibit significant MRD persistence after second and third consolidations (MRD positive vs. negative p=0.027 and p=0.001). Finally, DNMT3Amut patients presented a trend to greater risk of molecular relapse (p=0.054). When molecular failure was proven, patients underwent an allogeneic transplant. In conclusion, DNMT3Amut did not modify overall prognosis exerted by FLT3-ITD in AML-NPM1 despite delayed MRD clearance, possibly due to MRD-driven pre-emptive intervention.

Background Epigenetic therapy, using hypomethylating agents (HMA), is known to be effective in the treatment of high-risk myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) and acute myeloid leukemia (AML) patients who are not suitable for intensive chemotherapy and/or allogeneic stem cell transplantation. However, response rates to HMA are low and there is an unmet need in finding prognostic and predictive biomarkers of treatment response and overall survival. We performed global methylation analysis of 75 patients with high-risk MDS and secondary AML who were included in CETLAM SMD-09 protocol, in which patients received HMA or intensive treatment according to age, comorbidities and cytogenetic. Results Unsupervised analysis of global methylation pattern at diagnosis did not allow patients to be differentiated according to the cytological subtype, cytogenetic groups, treatment response or patient outcome. However, after a supervised analysis we found a methylation signature defined by 200 probes, which allowed differentiating between patients responding and non-responding to azacitidine (AZA) treatment and a different methylation pattern also defined by 200 probes that allowed to differentiate patients according to their survival. On studying follow-up samples, we confirmed that AZA decreases global DNA methylation, but in our cohort the degree of methylation decrease did not correlate with the type of response. The methylation signature detected at diagnosis was not useful in treated samples to distinguish patients who were going to relapse or progress. Conclusions Our findings suggest that in a subset of specific CpGs, altered DNA methylation patterns at diagnosis may be useful as a biomarker for predicting AZA response and survival.