Abstract
Abstract 430
Background:
The Dynamic International Prognostic Scoring System (DIPSS-plus) uses eight risk factors to predict overall survival (OS) in primary myelofibrosis (PMF): unfavorable karyotype, peripheral blood (PB) blast count ≥1%, platelet count <100 × 109/L, white blood cell count (WBC) >25 × 109/L, hemoglobin level <10 g/dL, red blood cell transfusion need, constitutional symptoms, and age >65 years (JCO 2011;29:392). Among these risk factors, karyotype holds a dominant role in predicting both overall (OS) and leukemia-free (LFS) survival (Blood 2011;118:4595). More recently, certain PMF-associated somatic mutations (IDH, EZH2, ASXL1, SRSF2) have been reported (in print or at recent meetings) to carry prognostic relevance for OS or LFS in PMF while other mutations (JAK2, MPL, TET2, SF3B1) did not. The purpose of the current study was to examine the individual and combined prognostic relevance of the former in the context of cytogenetic risk stratification and DIPSS-plus.
Methods:
An updated Mayo Clinic database of 1008 karyotypically- and DIPSS-plus-annotated patients with PMF was used to identify study patients in whom DNA at time of referral was available for mutation analysis. OS and LFS were calculated from the time of referral, which was also the time of study sample collection.
Results:
In an ongoing project, a total of 397 PMF patients have so far been studied for IDH1/2 (n=367), SRSF2 (n=355), ASXL1 (n=260) and EZH2 (n=43) mutations. The corresponding mutational frequencies were 5.4% (20/367), 14.4% (51/355), 31.2% (81/260) and 7% (3/43). These mutations were not exclusive of either each other or JAK2 or MPL mutations and a significant clustering was noted between SRSF2 and IDH mutations; IDH mutational frequency was 21% (10/48) in SRSF2-mutated versus 3% (9/279) in unmutated cases (P<0.0001). Mutational hotspots were P95 in exon 1 for SRSF2 and exons 1, 2 and 5 for ASXL1.
OS and LFS effect have so far been examined for ASXL1, SRSF2 and IDH 1/2 mutations; in univariate analysis, all three mutations significantly affected OS (ASXL1 RR 1.9, 95% CI 1.4–2.7; SRSF2 RR 1.7, 95% CI 1.2–2.5; IDH 1/2 RR 1.8, 95% CI 1.1–3.1) whereas only IDH 1/2 (RR 5.5, 95% CI 2.5–11.8) and SRSF2 (RR 3.5, 95% CI 1.7–7.0) but not ASXL1 (p=0.29) mutations affected LFS. The observed prognostic relevance for OS was sustained during multivariable analysis that included ASXL1 with either SRSF2 or IDH mutations, as co-variates, whereas both IDH and SRSF2 mutations remained significant for LFS.
Based on the above observations, study patients were classified into two groups: i) unmutated for ASXL1, SRSF2 and IDH1/2 (all unmutated; n=146) and ii) mutated for at least one of the three mutations (one or more mutated; n=130); the latter group constituted 62%, 52%, 18% and 27% of DIPSS-plus high, intermediate-2, intermediate-1and low risk patients, respectively (p<0.0001). The corresponding rates for patients with favorable and unfavorable karyotype were 47% and 43% (p=0.7) and for normal vs. abnormal karyotype were 53% and 36% (p=0.008). The “all unmutated group”, compared to the “one or more mutated group” enjoyed a significantly superior OS (RR 0.5, 95% CI 0.4–0.7) and LFS (RR 0.3, 95% CI 0.2–0.7) that was DIPSS-plus-independent for OS (p=0.03) and karyotype-independent for LFS (p=0.004). The prognostic value of distinguishing “all unmutated” from “one or more mutated” patient groups was most evident for DIPSS-plus intermediate-2 or lower risk groups (p=0.002) and its added value for high-risk group was limited (p=0.23) (Figure).
Conclusions:
A concomitant analysis strategy reveals that SRSF2, ASXL1 and IDH mutations carry inter-independent prognostic relevance for overall or leukemia-free survival in PMF. Any one of these three mutations is more likely to occur in patients with normal karyotype and such an event predicts shortened survival that is not accounted for by DIPSS-plus and a higher risk of leukemic transformation that is independent of karyotype. The current study suggests that such information might be useful in treatment decisions involving intermediate-2 or lower risk patients.
Disclosures:
No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.
Staged testing as a solution to the challenges of testing lower risk patients
