HHS Public Access

Author manuscript
Am J Hematol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 June 27.
Author Manuscript

Published in final edited form as:

Am J Hematol. 2016 February ; 91(2): 227–232. doi:10.1002/ajh.24252.

Interactions and relevance of blast percentage and treatment

strategy among younger and older patients with acute myeloid
leukemia (AML) and myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS)
Courtney D. DiNardo1,*, Guillermo Garcia-Manero1, Sherry Pierce1, Aziz Nazha2, Carlos
Bueso-Ramos3, Elias Jabbour1, Farhad Ravandi1, Jorge Cortes1, and Hagop Kantarjian1
1Department of Leukemia, University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
Author Manuscript

2Department of Hematologic Oncology and Blood Disorders, Cleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer
Institute, Cleveland, Ohio
3Department of Hematopathology, University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston,
Texas

Abstract
Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is defined as ≥20% myeloblasts, representing a change from
original guidelines where ≤30% blasts were considered as myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS), and
20–29% blasts classified as refractory anemia with excess blasts in transformation (RAEB-T).
Whether the diagnostic bone marrow blast percentage has current value with regards to patient
prognostication or identification of optimal treatment strategies is unclear. We retrospectively
Author Manuscript

studied 1652 treatment-naïve adults with MDS or AML and ≥10% blasts from January 2000 to
April 2014. Patients with 20–29% blasts were more similar to MDS patients in terms of advanced
age, increased frequency of poor-risk cytogenetics, lower WBC count, and less frequent NPM1
and FLT3-ITD mutations. Median overall survival of MDS and RAEB-T were similar, 16.0 and
16.0 months, compared to 13.5 months for AML with ≥30% blasts (P =0.045). Multivariate
analysis showed inferior survival with increased age (HR 1.81 age 60–69, HR 2.68 age ≥70, P <
0.0005); poor-risk cytogenetics (HR 2.25, P < 0.0005); therapy-related disease (HR 1.44, P <
0.0005); and markers of proliferative disease including WBC ≥25 × 109/L (HR 1.35, P = 0.0003),
elevated LDH count (HR 1.24, P =0.0015), and peripheral blasts (HR 1.25, P =0.004). Among
younger patients (≤60 years), intensive AML-type therapy resulted in similar outcomes regardless
of blast percentage, suggesting this to be optimal therapy in this context. Among older patients
(≥70 years), patients with 20–29% blasts had similar outcomes to patients with <20% blasts, and
Author Manuscript

better than those with ≥30% blasts. In addition, among older patients, epigenetic therapy provided
at least equivalent outcome to intensive chemotherapy.

*
Correspondence to: Courtney DiNardo, MD, Department of Leukemia, UT MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Unit
0428, Houston, TX 77030. cdinardo@mdanderson.org.
Disclosure: None.
Additional Supporting Information may be found in the online version of this article.
 DiNardo et al. Page 2

Introduction
Author Manuscript

Within myeloid malignancies, the bone marrow blast cutpoint of 20% to distinguish
myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) from acute myeloid leukemia (AML) remains a subject of
debate. In the original French-American-British (FAB) MDS classification system
established by pathologists in the 1970s based on bone marrow morphologic assessment,
MDS categories included refractory anemia with excess blasts (RAEB; 5–20% marrow
myeloblasts), and refractory anemia with excess blasts in transformation (RAEB-T; 21–30%
marrow myeloblasts) [1]. Greater than 30% blasts defined AML. Stemming from this FAB
system and incorporating the degree of peripheral cytopenias and karyotype information, the
International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS) and the Revised International Scoring
System (R-IPSS) were developed. They remain the most commonly applied risk models for
the evaluation and treatment of patients with MDS, notably including patients with up to
30% marrow blasts [2,3]. In the 2012 revised R-IPSS scoring system, patients with blasts
Author Manuscript

11–30% are considered to have the same “risk” and are grouped together for prognostication
purposes.

In 2001, the World Health Organization (WHO) Classification of myeloid neoplasms was
developed, and differed from the FAB Classification in that AML was defined as ≥20%
myeloblasts [4]. This updated definition was based on several lines of evidence. First was
the identification that in subsets of patients treated on CALGB cooperative group trials for
AML, who on subsequent central review were reclassified to have MDS with <30% blasts,
these patients with “MDS” appeared to respond as well as patients with AML to standard
AML therapy, with no difference in remission or overall survival rates [5]. A study by Estey
et al. demonstrated that the outcome of RAEB, RAEB-T, and/or AML treated with high-
dose cytarabine containing AML regimens (once controlled for covariates such as age,
Author Manuscript

performance status and cytogenetics by multivariate analysis) was irrespective of the blast
count at diagnosis, with the conclusion that patients with RAEB-T in particular may benefit
from AML-type chemotherapy [6].

These studies continue to shape the practice of MDS and AML therapy to date, but notably
the median age of patients treated in these two studies were 53 and 59 years, respectively. In
practice, both AML and MDS are diseases of advanced age, with a median age at diagnosis
of 70 years [7–10]. In comparison to younger patients (arbitrarily defined as <65 or <60
years), complete remission (CR) rates in elderly patients with AML are substantially lower
(10–40%), the median survival less than one year, and the 5-year survival rate less than 10%
[11–13]. The reasons for the worse outcomes in elderly patients are multifactorial, including
poor tolerance to intensive chemotherapy, an increased incidence of comorbidities and
Author Manuscript

compromised organ functions, poor performance status, increased rate of therapy-related

disease and/or intrinsically higher risk leukemia features, such as poor risk cytogenetics (i.e.,
chromosome 5, 7 and complex karyotype) and TP53 mutations [7,11,14–16]. The impact of
proliferative disease (such as degree of leukocytosis or peripheral blast percentage at
diagnosis) among elderly patients is furthermore not well defined.

With particular attention to the overlap of 20–30% myeloblasts between the WHO and the
FAB classification systems, we sought to address whether the percent of blasts and degree of

Am J Hematol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 June 27.

 DiNardo et al. Page 3

proliferation in newly diagnosed patients with myeloid malignancies impacts clinical

Author Manuscript

outcome, and whether this effect is age-dependent. A secondary aim was to evaluate
outcome based on particular treatment strategies, such as intensive induction chemotherapy
or hypomethylating agent therapy. This may help answer two important questions in clinical
practice: (1) whether younger patients (i.e., ≤60 years) with 10–20% blasts should be treated
with AML-type intensive chemotherapy or treated as MDS; and (2) whether some older
patients (i.e., ≥70 years) with ≥30% blasts have an AML that is more indolent and best
treated with MDS-type hypomethylating agent strategies.

Methods
All adult patients treated at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center from
January 2000 to April 2014 with a diagnosis of untreated AML or MDS and ≥10% blasts
were reviewed (Table I). Patients previously treated for a non-myeloid malignancy were
Author Manuscript

included, and were classified as treatment-related per WHO guidelines. Patients with acute
promyelocytic leukemia (APL) and favorable risk cytogenetics were excluded from the
analysis. Cytogenetics were classified utilizing the global MD Anderson model as diploid/
isolated-Y, poor-risk (complex ≥3 abnormalities or chromosome 7 abnormalities), or other
intermediate karyotype [17]. The study was conducted in compliance with institutional
guidelines. Informed consent was obtained in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.
Treatment received varied by diagnosis, patient age, and treatment period. For this study,
therapies were classified into [1] intensive induction therapy (IC), defined as conventional “7
+3” induction regimens or high-dose (≥1 g/m2 daily) cytarabine-containing chemotherapy
regimens, [2] hypomethylating agent (HMA)-based chemotherapy, and [3] other, including
low-dose intensity therapy incorporating lower dose cytarabine-based regimens, and clinical
trials not incorporating either IC or HMA-based therapy. A table of the treatments is
Author Manuscript

provided in Supporting Information Table 1 and summarized by age in Table II. Cytogenetic
analysis was performed at diagnosis in all patients. FLT3, KRAS, NRAS, and NPM1
mutational status was recorded when available.

Response categories were assessed using the modified International Working Group (IWG)
criteria [18,19]. Induction mortality was defined as 8-week mortality [11]. Patient
characteristics are summarized by median (range) values for continuous variables and
frequency (percentage) for categorical values. Categorical variables were compared using
the χ2 or Fisher’s exact test, and continuous variables using the Wilcoxon’s rank sum test.
Survival was evaluated by the Kaplan–Meier method, with differences compared between
groups using the log-rank test. Overall survival was measured as the time from MD
Anderson diagnosis until death from any cause or date of last follow-up (censored). The
Author Manuscript

predictive effects of patient and disease characteristics on survival were examined using
univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards models. Analyses were performed
using SAS 9.0 and Statistica software, version 12.0 (College Station, TX).

Results
For this analysis and manuscript clarity, we hereafter utilize the FAB classification system
and refer to MDS as 10–19% myeloblasts, RAEB-T as 20–29% blasts, and AML ≥30%

Am J Hematol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 June 27.

 DiNardo et al. Page 4

myeloblasts. A total of 1652 patients were analyzed. These included 263 patients with 10–
Author Manuscript

19% bone marrow blasts, 230 patients with 20–29% blasts, and 1159 patients with ≥30%
blasts. The median age for the entire cohort was 64 years (range 17–92); 55% of patients
were male. Clinical and disease-specific characteristics for the entire study group and by
disease at diagnosis are provided in Table I.

Pretreatment associations
Statistically significant differences between most clinicopathologic characteristics by FAB
classification were identified (Table I). The frequency of therapy-related disease was 17%
and did not vary by FAB diagnosis. One-third of patients were ≥70 years; a higher
proportion of older patients was observed in the RAEB-T (37%) and MDS (39%) categories
compared to AML (31%) (P <0.001). Nearly half of all patients had diploid or isolated-Y
cytogenetics at diagnosis (n =784, 49%). A complex karyotype or abnormalities involving
Author Manuscript

chromosome 7 were present in 28%, with a higher incidence of poor-risk cytogenetics in the
MDS and RAEB-T versus AML categories (37% and 37 versus 24%, respectively, P
<0.001).

A minority of patients with MDS (7%) and RAEB-T (9%) had a peripheral white blood cell
(WBC) count ≥25 × 109/L at the time of diagnosis, compared to 21% of patients with AML
(P <0.001). Differences in the incidences of the presence of peripheral blasts (MDS 50%,
RAEB-T 66%, AML 82%; P <0.001) and elevated LDH (MDS 45%, RAEB-T 45%, AML
67%; P =0.001) were similarly noted.

Molecular profiling was performed including FLT3 internal tandem duplication (FLT3-ITD)
in all patients (n =1652), NPM1 in 58% (n =958), and NRAS or KRAS in 85% (n =1412).
Patients with AML had a higher frequency of these mutations compared to either MDS or
Author Manuscript

RAEB-T. Specifically, FLT3-ITD mutations were present in 2% of MDS, 6% of RAEB-T,

and 22% of AML (P <0.001). NPM1 mutations were present in 8% of MDS, 6% of RAEB-
T, and 29% of AML (P <0.001). Thus, the frequency of both FLT3 and NPM1 molecular
events among patients with 20–29% blasts resembled those with <20% blasts. KRAS or
NRAS mutations occurred in 7% of MDS, 10% of RAEB-T, and 13% of AML (P =0.02).

Overall, 51% of patients (n =836) received IC, 26% (n =432) HMA-based, and 23% (n
=384) other therapies. Patients with MDS were more likely to receive HMA-based therapy
(63%) compared to patients with RAEB-T (27%) or AML (18%), and were less likely to
receive IC-based regimens (MDS-19% vs. RAEB-T–44% vs. AML-59%). By age, 94 and
6% of patients <60 years received IC and HMA-based therapy, respectively. This compares
to 35 and 46% in patients 60–69 years of age, and 14 and 54% in patients ≥70 years (Table
Author Manuscript

II).

Prognostic factors for survival in the total study group—With a median follow-up
of 38 months, overall survival was 16.0 months in MDS, 16.0 months in RAEB-T, and 13.5
months in AML (P =0.045) (Table III; Fig. 1).

Pretreatment patient and disease characteristics associated with differences in outcome by

univariate analysis are detailed in Table III. Survival was not affected by the presence of

Am J Hematol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 June 27.

 DiNardo et al. Page 5

either FLT3-ITD or RAS mutations. By multivariate analysis, older age, WBC count ≥25 ×
109/L, poor-risk cytogenetics, therapy-related AML, elevated LDH and the presence of
Author Manuscript

peripheral blasts were significantly associated with inferior survival (Table IV). Notably, the
blast percentage at diagnosis (MDS versus RAEB-T versus AML) was not an independent
factor for survival after accounting for the other independent prognostic factors in
multivariate analysis (Table IV).

There was a strong association between the type of chemotherapy and age. Among younger
patients (age ≤60 years), 592/630 (94%) received IC. Among older patients, 294/547 (54%)
received HMA and 470/547 (86%) received HMA or other low-intensity therapies. Such
strong confounding associations may mask the benefit of particular therapy (IC vs HMA) in
the total population, and may explain why the type of therapy was not identified as
prognostic by multivariate analysis within the total study group.
Author Manuscript

Prognostic factors for survival in younger and older patients—Because of the

strong and confounding association between age and therapy, we conducted prognostic
factor analyses in the age subsets (younger, older) to define better the effects of blasts
percent and of therapy. We divided patients into three age groups (<60, 60–69, and ≥70
years) and repeated the survival analyses (Tables (V–VIII)). Univariate results are displayed
in Table V and multivariate analyses in Table (VI–VIII).

Molecular characteristics were noticeably significant only among younger patients (<60
years), with FLT3-ITD mutations conferring an inferior survival of 15 versus 25 months (P
=0.019) and NPM1 mutations conferring an improved survival of 61 versus 17 months (P
=0.002) (Tables V and VII). This survival impact was not observed among older patients
≥60 years (Table V). Cytogenetics and therapy-related status were the only variables that
Author Manuscript

maintained significance in all age cohorts (Table VI–VIII).

Among younger patients (<60 years), outcome was similar in IC-treated patients
independent of BM blast percentage at diagnosis (Fig. 2). Median survivals by blasts 10–19,
20–29, and ≥30% were 39, 18, and 24 months, respectively (P =0.98; Table V). This
suggests that in all younger patients with ≥10% blasts, regardless of classification of MDS or
AML, intensive chemotherapy should be considered. Only 33 patients <60 years with 10–
29% blasts received HMA therapy; median survival was 20 months, versus 39 months in the
patients with 10–29% blasts who received IC, which was not statistically significant (P
=0.51). The small number of patients precluded meaningful conclusions about the
comparative benefit of HMA to IC in younger patients with 10–29% blasts.

Older patients were noted to have equivalent or better outcome with HMA therapy (Table
Author Manuscript

V). Among patients >70 years, the median survival was 10 months with HMA and 5 months
with IC (Table V). By multivariate analysis, IC was associated with a hazard ratio of 1.13 (P
=0.41; Table VIII) suggesting HMAs to be at least equivalent to IC among older patients.

Among older patients >70 years the median survival with blasts 10–19% was 15 months,
versus 9 months with blasts 20–29% and 7 months with ≥30% blasts. However, among
patients 60–69 years old, the median survivals with blasts 10–19, 20–29, and ≥30% were 15,

Am J Hematol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 June 27.

 DiNardo et al. Page 6

21, and 11 months respectively. This suggests that the cut-off blasts of 20–29% should be a
Author Manuscript

stratification risk factor in studies of novel agents in older patients, since it is not clear
whether patients with 20–29% blasts behave like MDS or AML.

Of interest, markers of proliferative disease (high WBC, peripheral blasts, LDH) remained
independent prognostic factors for survival in the multivariate analyses in older patients
(Table VI–VIII), again indicating their importance in stratifying patients on future
therapeutic trials in MDS and AML.

Discussion
The separation of MDS and AML by blast percentage remains an arbitrary distinction, with
the original FAB classification defining >30% blasts as AML, the current WHO guidelines
defining ≥20% blasts as AML, and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN)
Author Manuscript

endorsing both systems [20]. The importance of these cut-points in relationship to other
factors including patient age and measures of proliferative disease is ill-defined. Yet this
separation is important, as currently patients with “RAEB-T” (20–29% blasts) are treated
most often like AML, with intensive chemotherapy regimens favored over HMA-based
regimens, despite the predominantly elderly RAEB-T patient population and the increased
toxicity with high dose cytarabine-based combinations. Furthermore, among older patients
with AML (currently defined as ≥20% bone marrow blasts), no accepted treatment
algorithms or standards of care exist. We therefore sought to analyze a large cohort of adults
with newly diagnosed MDS, RAEB-T, and AML to investigate whether the RAEB-T
classification was more comparable to MDS or AML, and whether other characteristics,
most specifically age, molecular characteristics, degree of proliferation, and treatment
strategy impacted patient survival within these diagnostic entities.
Author Manuscript

Several findings from this analysis are significant and may guide therapy in clinical practice.
First, the analysis demonstrated that patients with RAEB-T more closely resembled patients
with MDS in relation to both clinicopathologic and molecular characteristics: advanced age
at diagnosis, increased presence of poor-risk cytogenetics, less proliferative disease and
decreased frequency of FLT3-ITD and NPM1 mutations.

Second, the most consistently significant variables impacting patient survival were the well-
established prognostic variables of age at diagnosis, cytogenetics and therapy-related disease
status. The independent importance of therapy-related disease status suggests additional
factors are at play in therapy-related myeloid disorders over and above the increased
frequency of poor-risk cytogenetics, likely at least partly due to the development of TP53
mutations which were not annotated in our historical cohort [21,22]. Inferior survival in the
Author Manuscript

entire study population was also significantly associated with markers of proliferative
disease, including WBC ≥25 × 109/L, the presence of circulating blasts, and/or elevated
LDH (≥600 IU/L) at diagnosis, suggesting these standard clinical variables are not only
prognostic, but provide equivalently useful information at the time of diagnosis as the bone
marrow blast percentage.

Am J Hematol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 June 27.

 DiNardo et al. Page 7

Third, it was only among the younger patients that FLT3-ITD and NPM1 mutations
Author Manuscript

impacted overall survival. The median survival was 15 months versus 25 months depending
on the presence versus absence of FLT3-ITD (P =0.019), and the median survival was 61
months versus 17 months with the presence versus absence of NPM1 mutation (P =0.002).
Molecular mutations in FLT3-ITD and NPM1 are now routinely analyzed as part of the
current WHO guidelines for risk stratification of patients at diagnosis. The survival impact
of these mutations in elderly patients has not been fully characterized. Mutational status of
NPM1 and FLT3-ITD in particular have been reported to be of less prognostic importance in
elderly populations [23–25] a conclusion substantiated in our analysis. The presence of RAS
mutations did not affect patient survival in any analyzed cohort.

Fourth, outcomes based on treatment strategy provided insights into potential clinical
practice. Intensive-chemotherapy based-treatment strategies are appropriate for younger
patients regardless of the blasts percentage at AML diagnosis, suggesting this to be an
Author Manuscript

appropriate strategy in all patients with blasts are ≥10%. However, among older patients,
HMA therapy was associated with similar or improved outcomes compared with intensive
chemotherapy approaches. In addition, older patients with ≥20–29% blasts seemed to behave
more like patients with <20% blasts rather than patients with >30% blasts in terms of
clinical and pathologic characteristics.

In summary, through a detailed evaluation of a large study group of patients with myeloid
malignancy, we conclude that patients with 20–29% bone marrow blasts at the time of
diagnosis have clinicopathologic features more similar to MDS than AML. Among younger
patients, intensive chemotherapy provided similar benefits regardless of the percent of blasts
(10–19% vs. 20–29% vs. ≥30%). Among older patients, the 20% blasts cutoff should be
considered as a stratification variable in studies evaluating novel therapies in AML and
Author Manuscript

MDS. As “standard of care”, epigenetic therapy in older patients with AML offers at least
equivalent benefits to intensive chemotherapy.

Acknowledgments
Contract grant sponsor: The MD Anderson Cancer Center Support Grant (CCSG); Contract grant number:
CA01667.

References
1. Bennett JM, Catovsky D, Daniel MT, et al. Proposals for the classification of the acute leukaemias.
French-American-British (FAB) cooperative group. Br J Haematol. 1976; 33:451–458. [PubMed:
188440]
2. Greenberg P, Cox C, LeBeau MM, et al. International scoring system for evaluating prognosis in
Author Manuscript

myelodysplastic syndromes. Blood. 1997; 89:2079–2088. Epub 1997/03/15. eng. [PubMed:

9058730]
3. Greenberg PL, Tuechler H, Schanz J, et al. Revised international prognostic scoring system for
myelodysplastic syndromes. Blood. 2012; 120:2454–2465. Epub 2012/06/29. eng. [PubMed:
22740453]
4. Vardiman JW, Harris NL, Brunning RD. The World Health Organization (WHO) classification of
the myeloid neoplasms. Blood. 2002; 100:2292–2302. [PubMed: 12239137]
5. Bernstein SH, Brunetto VL, Davey FR, et al. Acute myeloid leukemia-type chemotherapy for newly
diagnosed patients without antecedent cytopenias having myelodysplastic syndrome as defined by

Am J Hematol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 June 27.

 DiNardo et al. Page 8

French-American-British criteria: a Cancer and Leukemia Group B Study. J Clin Oncol. 1996;
14:2486–2494. [PubMed: 8823327]
Author Manuscript

6. Estey E, Thall P, Beran M, et al. Effect of diagnosis (refractory anemia with excess blasts, refractory
anemia with excess blasts in transformation, or acute myeloid leukemia [AML]) on outcome of
AML-type chemotherapy. Blood. 1997; 90:2969–2977. [PubMed: 9376577]
7. Estey E, Dohner H. Acute myeloid leukaemia. Lancet. 2006; 368:1894–1907. [PubMed: 17126723]
8. Phekoo KJ, Richards MA, Moller H, et al. The incidence and outcome of myeloid malignancies in
2,112 adult patients in southeast England. Haematologica. 2006; 91:1400–1404. [PubMed:
17018393]
9. Thein MS, Ershler WB, Jemal A, et al. Outcome of older patients with acute myeloid leukemia.
Cancer. 2013; 119:2720–2727. [PubMed: 23633441]
10. Derolf AR, Kristinsson SY, Andersson TM, et al. Improved patient survival for acute myeloid
leukemia: A population-based study of 9729 patients diagnosed in Sweden between 1973 and
2005. Blood. 2009; 113:3666–3672. [PubMed: 19020306]
11. Kantarjian H, O’Brien S, Cortes J, et al. Results of intensive chemotherapy in 998 patients age 65
years or older with acute myeloid leukemia or high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome: Predictive
Author Manuscript

prognostic models for outcome. Cancer. 2006; 106:10908.

12. Appelbaum FR, Gundacker H, Head DR, et al. Age and acute myeloid leukemia. Blood. 2006;
107:3481–3485. [PubMed: 16455952]
13. Roboz GJ. Current treatment of acute myeloid leukemia. Curr Opin Oncol. 2012; 24:711–719.
[PubMed: 23014187]
14. Frohling S, Schlenk RF, Kayser S, et al. Cytogenetics and age are major determinants of outcome
in intensively treated acute myeloid leukemia patients older than 60 years: Results from AMLSG
trial AML HD98-B. Blood. 2006; 108:3280–3288. [PubMed: 16840728]
15. Dohner H, Estey EH, Amadori S, et al. Diagnosis and management of acute myeloid leukemia in
adults: Recommendations from an international expert panel, on behalf of the European
LeukemiaNet. Blood. 2010; 115:453–474. [PubMed: 19880497]
16. Rucker FG, Schlenk RF, Bullinger L, et al. TP53 alterations in acute myeloid leukemia with
complex karyotype correlate with specific copy number alterations, monosomal karyotype, and
dismal outcome. Blood. 2012; 119:2114–2121. [PubMed: 22186996]
Author Manuscript

17. Kantarjian H, O’Brien S, Ravandi F, et al. Proposal for a new risk model in myelodysplastic
syndrome that accounts for events not considered in the original International Prognostic Scoring
System. Cancer. 2008; 113:1351–1361. [PubMed: 18618511]
18. Cheson BD, Greenberg PL, Bennett JM, et al. Clinical application and proposal for modification of
the International Working Group (IWG) response criteria in myelodysplasia. Blood. 2006;
108:419–425. [PubMed: 16609072]
19. Cheson BD, Bennett JM, Kopecky KJ, et al. Revised recommendations of the International
Working Group for Diagnosis, Standardization of Response Criteria, Treatment Outcomes, and
Reporting Standards for Therapeutic Trials in Acute Myeloid Leukemia. J Clin Oncol. 2003;
21:4642–4649. [PubMed: 14673054]
20. Myelodysplastic syndromes. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines on Oncology [Internet]. 2011
21. Cleven AH, Nardi V, Ok CY, et al. High p53 protein expression in therapy-related myeloid
neoplasms is associated with adverse karyotype and poor outcome. Mod Pathol. 2014:2541–2846.
22. Wong TN, Ramsingh G, Young AL, et al. Role of TP53 mutations in the origin and evolution of
therapy-related acute myeloid leukaemia. Nature. 2014
Author Manuscript

23. Whitman SP, Maharry K, Radmacher MD, et al. FLT3 internal tandem duplication associates with
adverse outcome and gene- and microRNA-expression signatures in patients 60 years of age or
older with primary cytogenetically normal acute myeloid leukemia: A Cancer and Leukemia
Group B study. Blood. 2010; 116:3622–3626. [PubMed: 20656931]
24. Andersson A, Johansson B, Lassen C, et al. Clinical impact of internal tandem duplications and
activating point mutations in FLT3 in acute myeloid leukemia in elderly patients. Eur J Haematol.
2004; 72:307–313. [PubMed: 15059064]

Am J Hematol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 June 27.

 DiNardo et al. Page 9

25. Rollig C, Thiede C, Gramatzki M, et al. A novel prognostic model in elderly patients with acute
myeloid leukemia: results of 909 patients entered into the prospective AML96 trial. Blood. 2010;
Author Manuscript

116:971–978. [PubMed: 20442365]

Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

Am J Hematol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 June 27.

 DiNardo et al. Page 10
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

Figure 1.
Survival in the study group by percent of bone marrow blasts. [Color figure can be viewed in
the online issue, which is available at wileyonlinelibrary.com.]
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

Am J Hematol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 June 27.

 DiNardo et al. Page 11
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

Figure 2.
Survival in young patients(<60 years) treated with intensive chemotherapy according to
bone marrow blasts. [Color figure can be viewed in the online issue, which is available at
wileyonlinelibrary.com.]
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

Am J Hematol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 June 27.

 Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript

TABLE I

Baseline Clinicopathologic Characteristics No. (%) by Bone Marrow Blast %.

Characterisitics 10–19 20–29 30+ Total P value

No 263 230 1159 1652
DiNardo et al.

Gender Female 101 (38) 99 (43) 541 (47) 741 (45)

Age (Continuous) 65 (17–90) 65 (18–85) 63 (17–92) 64 (17–92) 0.04
<60 70 (26) 68 (30) 497 (43) 635 (38)
60–69 90 (34) 78 (34) 302 (26) 470 (28) <0.001
≥70 103 (39) 84 (37) 360 (31) 547 (33)
WBC (x 109/L) ≥25 18 (7) 20 (9) 240 (21) 278 (17) <0.001
Serum LDH (IU/L) ≥600 117(45) 101(45) 762(67) 980(59) <0.001
Peripheral blasts Present 131 (50) 152 (66) 953 (82) 1236 (75) <0.001
Induction therapy HMA 166 (63) 61 (27) 205 (18) 432 (26)
IC 50 (19) 102 (44) 684 (59) 836 (51) <0.001
Other 47 (18) 67 (29) 270 (23) 384 (23)
FLT3-ITD Negative 258 (98) 216 (94) 908 (78) 1382 (84)
Positive 5 (2) 14 (6) 251 (22) 270 (16) <0.001
NPM1 Negative 109 (92) 138 (94) 492 (71) 739 (77)
Positive 9 (8) 9 (6) 201 (29) 219 (23) <0.001
KRAS or NRAS Negative 224 (93) 175 (90) 852 (87) 1251 (89)
Positive 16 (7) 20 (10) 125 (13) 161 (11) 0.02
Cytogenetics Diploid/-Y 113 (45) 100 (47) 571 (51) 784 (49)

Am J Hematol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 June 27.

Intermediate 46 (18) 38 (17) 285 (25) 369 (23) <0.001
Complex or 27/7q- 92 (37) 81 (37) 270 (24) 443 (28)
Therapy Related Response Yes 55 (21) 42 (18) 184 (16) 281 (17) 0.13
CR/CRp 134 (51) 136 (59) 746 (64) 1016 (62)
NR 108 (41) 71 (31) 301 (26) 480 (29) <0.001
Induction Death 21 (8) 23 (10) 112 (10) 156 (9)
Page 12
 DiNardo et al. Page 13

TABLE II

Therapy Received by Age No on Therapy (%).

Author Manuscript

Age (years) No. Intensive Hypomethylating Other low intensity

<60 630 592 (94) 40 (6) 3 (0.005)
60–69 470 167 (35) 217 (46) 86 (18)
≥ 70 547 77 (14) 294 (54) 176 (32)
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

Am J Hematol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 June 27.

 DiNardo et al. Page 14

TABLE III

Prognostic Factors Associated with Overall Survival by Univariate Analysis in the Total Study Group.
Author Manuscript

Characteristic Overall Median survival (months) P value

BM blasts 10–19 16.0
20–29 16.0
30+ 13.5 0.045
Age <60 22.5
60–69 13.5
≥70 9.2 <0.001
WBC (x109/l) <25 15.1
≥25 9.6 0.002
Treatment HMA 11.9
IC 18.4
Author Manuscript

Other 8.7 <0.001

FLT3-ITD Neg 14.6
Pos 13.1 0.73
Cytogenetics Diploid/-Y 19.4
Other Intermediate 13.8
Complex or 27 7.5 <0.001
Therapy related No 15.8
Yes 8.2 <0.001
LDH (IU/l) <600 16.7
≥600 12 <0.001
PB blasts None 19.5
Present 12 <0.001
Author Manuscript

NPM1 Negative 12.9

Positive 19.4 <0.001
RAS Negative 13.5
Positive 13.5 0.77
Author Manuscript

Am J Hematol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 June 27.

 DiNardo et al. Page 15

TABLE IV

Multivariate Analysis Results for Survival in the Total Study Group.

Author Manuscript

Variable Hazard ratio 95% Confidence interval P value

Poor risk cytogenetics 2.3 1.99–2.66 <0.0005
Other intermediate cytogenetics 1.34 1.15–1.56 <0.0005
Therapy-related AML 1.45 1.24–1.69 <0.0005
Age 60–69 years 1.81 1.55–2.11 <0.0005
Age ≥70 years 2.68 2.29–3.14 <0.0005
Marrow blasts 20–29% 1.03 0.82–1.29 0.78
Marrow blasts >30% 1.17 0.97–1.4 0.085
Intensive chemotherapy 1.0 0.84–1.2 0.93
“Other” treatment 1.18 1.01–1.38 0.034
WBC 1.35 1.15–1.59 <0.0005
Author Manuscript

LDH ≥600 IU/l 1.24 1.09–1.42 0.0015

Peripheral blasts 1.25 1.07–1.45 0.004
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

Am J Hematol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 June 27.

 Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript

TABLE V

Univariate Analysis of Prognostic Factors Associated with Survival by Age.

Median OS Median OS Median OS

Category Characteristics Age <60 (n =635) P value Age 60–69 (n =470) P value Age 70+ (n =537) P value
DiNardo et al.

BM blasts 10–19 39 15 15
20–29 18 21 9
30+ 24 0.98 11 0.006 7 <0.001
WBC (×109/l) <25 26 14 9
≥25 14 <0.001 9 0.07 6 0.097
Treatment HMA 15 14 10
IC 23 16 5
Other 28 0.45 9 0.16 8 <0.001
Cytogenetics Diploid/-Y 40 18 15
Other intermediate 20 15 9
Complex or 27 11 <0.001 8 <0.001 4 <0.001
Therapy-related No 27 16 10
Yes 13 <0.001 9 <0.001 4 <0.001
LDH (IU/l) <600 28 17 12
600+ 19 0.056 10 <0.001 6 0.002
PB blasts None 31 24 15
Present 20 0.086 11 <0.001 7 0.002
FLT3-ITD Negative 25 14 10

Am J Hematol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 June 27.

Positive 15 0.019 14 0.97 10 0.83
NPM1 Negative 17 13 9
Positive 61 0.002 16 0.07 9 0.11
RAS Negative 22 14 9
Positive 20 0.74 9 0.18 8 0.37
Page 16
 DiNardo et al. Page 17

TABLE VI

Multivariate for Survival in Patients <60 Years.

Author Manuscript

HR 95% CI P value
Poor risk cytogenetics 2.33 1.81–2.99 0.0005
Therapy-related 1.56 1.16–2.1 <0.0005
WBC ≥25 (×109/l) 1.63 1.26–2.1 0.0002
FLT3-ITD+ 1.54 1.18–2.0 0.002
Other intermediate cytogenetics 1.23 0.93–1.61 0.14
LDH 1.15 0.88–1.49 0.30
Peripheral blasts 0.93 0.70–1.26 0.67
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

Am J Hematol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 June 27.

 DiNardo et al. Page 18

TABLE VII

Multivariate Analysis for Survival in Patients Age 60–69 Years.

Author Manuscript

HR 95% CI P value
Poor risk cytogenetics 2.18 1.72–2.76 <0.0005
Therapy-related 1.55 1.19–2.02 0.001
Peripheral blasts 1.54 1.18–2.0 0.001
LDH 1.34 1.07–1.67 0.010
Marrow blasts 0.72 0.49–1.05 0.08
20–29%
Marrow blasts ≥30% 1.05 0.79–1.41 0.72
WBC ≥25 (×109/l) 1.22 0.90–1.66 0.20
Other intermediate cytogenetics 1.04 0.78–1.40 0.77
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

Am J Hematol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 June 27.

 DiNardo et al. Page 19

TABLE VIII

Multivariate Analysis for Survival in Patients Age ≥70 Years.

Author Manuscript

HR 95% CI P value
Poor risk cytogenetics 2.49 1.98–3.14 <0.0005
Other intermediate cytogenetics 1.85 1.44–2.37 <0.0005
Therapy-related 1.30 1.02–1.65 0.031
LDH 1.42 1.17–1.72 0.0005
Marrow blasts 20–29% 1.18 0.85–1.64 0.32
Marrow blasts >30% 1.29 0.98–1.68 0.067
WBC ≥25 (×109/l) 1.13 0.85–1.50 0.41
PB blasts 1.11 0.87–1.41 0.39
Intensive chemotherapy 1.13 0.85–1.50 0.41
Other therapy 1.19 0.96–1.47 0.11
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

Am J Hematol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 June 27.