Treatment Patterns and Outcomes of Patients with NPM1+Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML) Enrolled in the CONNECT (R) Myeloid Disease Registry

Author Type(s)

Faculty

Document Type

Abstract

Publication Date

11-15-2022

Journal Title

Blood

Department

Medicine

Abstract

Background Mutations in NPM1 (NPM1+) occur in ∼30% of patients with AML. NPM1+ has been associated with favorable outcomes following intensive chemotherapy (IC) and demonstrated positive prognostic value in the absence of concurrent FLT3-internal tandem duplication (FLT3-ITD) mutations. Recently, several studies have reported differences in outcomes in patients with NPM1 mutations based on age and treatment. In this analysis we evaluated treatment patterns and outcomes in AML based on NPM1 mutational status and primary induction therapy in patients who were enrolled in the CONNECT® Myeloid Disease Registry (NCT01688011).

Methods

Patients aged 55 years or older with AML were grouped by known NPM1 status (NPM1+ vs NPM1‒) and induction therapy (non-IC vs IC). Overall survival (OS) and event-free survival (EFS) were evaluated using the Cox model adjusted for age. For the EFS analyses, an event was defined as death, disease progression, or refractory to therapy.

Results

A total of 483 patients with known NPM1 status were assessed (NPM1+, n = 123; NPM1‒, n = 360). Most patients were male (NPM1+, 61.5%; NPM1‒, 60.7%) and white (NPM1+, 78.0%; NPM1‒, 85.6%; Table). Median age, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS), and frailty group were similar in the NPM1+ and NPM1‒ groups. Favorable and adverse European LeukemiaNet (ELN) risk scores at baseline were different in the NPM1+ and NPM1‒ groups. The majority of patients received non-IC regimens as induction therapy (NPM1+, 69.1%; NPM1-, 75.0%).

Overall, patients with NPM1+ AML had significantly longer median OS (26 mo) compared with patients with NPM1- AML (15 mo) (HR [95% CI]: NPM1+ vs NPM1- 0.58 [0.44-0.76]; P < 0.01). When analyzed by type of induction regimen (non-IC vs IC), although OS remained numerically longer for patients in the NPM1+ groups, the differences were not statistically significant. Among patients who received non-IC regimens, median OS was 19 and 14 mo in the NPM1+ and NPM1- groups, respectively (Figure). Among patients who received IC regimens, median OS was 24 and 16 mo in the NPM1+ and NPM1- groups, respectively.

There was a significant improvement in EFS for patients in the NPM1+ group vs the NPM1- group (20 mo vs 11 mo; hazard ratio [HR] [95% CI], NPM1+ vs NPM1- 0.61 [0.47-0.80]; P < 0.01). This was also true for patients treated with non-IC regimens (15 vs 11 mo in the NPM1+ and NPM1- groups, respectively; HR [95% CI], NPM1+ vs NPM1- 0.67 [0.46-1.00]; P = 0.048). In contrast with the non-IC treated regimens, in patients treated with IC regimens, NPM1+ status was not associated with significantly longer EFS compared to NPM1- status.

Patients with known NPM1 status were further evaluated for additional mutations and the following differences were noted: the frequency of mutations in tumor protein p53 (TP53) (1.6% vs 18.6%), RUNX1 (0.8% vs 14.8%), ASXL1 (2.4% vs 17.6%) IDH2 (8.9% vs 15.7%), and NRAS/KRAS (8.9% vs 14.3%) was lower in patients with NPM1+ vs NPM1- AML, respectively, whereas the frequency of mutations in FLT3-ITD (35.8% vs 17.1%), FLT3- tyrosine kinase domain (TKD) (14.6% vs 6.2%), DNMT3A (23.6% vs 15.7%), and IDH1 (14.6% vs 8.6%) was higher in patients with NPM1+ vs NPM1- AML, respectively.

Conclusions Overall, patients with NPM1+ AML had longer OS and EFS than patients with NPM1‒ AML. This was observed among patients with NPM1+ AML for both non-IC and IC induction regimens. Patterns of co-mutations differed between the NPM1+ and NPM1- groups and is a likely contributing factor to differences between outcomes.

Link to Full Text

Share

COinS