Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2016 May 18.
Published in final edited form as: Bone Marrow Transplant. 2015 Jul 20;51(4):511–520. doi: 10.1038/bmt.2015.170

FLT3 mutational status is an independent risk factor for adverse outcomes after allogeneic transplantation in AML

Yeohan Song 1,7,#, John Magenau 2,3,4,#, Yumeng Li 5,6, Thomas Braun 5,6, Lawrence Chang 7, Dale Bixby 2,3,4, David A Hanauer 3,6,8, Komal A Chughtai 1,7, Erin Gatza 7, Daniel Couriel 2,3,4, Steven Goldstein 2,3,4, Attaphol Pawarode 2,3,4, Pavan Reddy 2,3,4, Mary Riwes 2,3,4, James Connelly 3,4,7, Andrew Harris 3,4,7, Carrie Kitko 3,4,7, John Levine 3,4,7, Greg Yanik 3,4,7, Brian Parkin 2,3,4,#, Sung Won Choi 3,4,7,#
PMCID: PMC4720584  NIHMSID: NIHMS699693  PMID: 26191952

Abstract

Allogeneic HCT has been increasingly used in the setting of FLT3 mutated AML. However, its role in conferring durable relapse-free intervals remains in question. Herein, we sought to investigate FLT3 mutational status on transplant outcomes. We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 262 consecutive AML patients who underwent first-time allogeneic HCT (2008-2014), of whom 171 had undergone FLT3-ITD mutational testing. FLT3 mutated AML was associated with nearly twice the relapse risk (RR) compared with those without FLT3 mutation 3 years post-HCT (63% vs. 37%, P<0.001), and with a shorter median time to relapse (100 vs. 121 days). FLT3 mutational status remained significantly associated with this outcome after controlling for patient, disease, and transplant-related risk factors (P<0.05). Multivariate analysis showed a significant association of FLT3 mutation with increased 3-year RR (HR 3.63, 95% CI: 2.13, 6.19, P<0.001), and inferior disease-free survival (HR 2.05, 95% CI: 1.29, 3.27, P<0.01) and overall survival (HR 1.92, 95% CI: 1.14, 3.24, P<0.05). These data demonstrate high risk of early relapse after allogeneic HCT for FLT3 mutated AML that translates into adverse disease-free and overall survival outcomes. Additional targeted and coordinated interventions are needed to maintain durable remission after allogeneic HCT in this high-risk population.

Keywords: Acute myeloid leukemia, FLT3 mutation, FMS-like tyrosine kinase-3, Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation

INTRODUCTION

Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is a genetically heterogeneous disease.1 Acquired somatic mutations in the FMS-like tyrosine kinase-3 (FLT3) gene occur in up to 20% to 30% of AML patients who carry the internal tandem duplication (ITD) mutation.2-4 FLT3-ITD has been characterized as a gain-of-function mutation with constitutive activation of receptor tyrosine kinase FLT3.5 This alteration has been associated with adverse prognosis in both pediatric and adult AML patients.4, 6

Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) is an important treatment option for patients with AML.7 Unfortunately, disease recurrence and transplant-related toxicity remain the major causes of treatment failure.8 Accordingly, the value of allogeneic HCT in conferring durable long-term remission free intervals continues to be an important consideration, particularly in patients with FLT3 gene mutation.

FLT3 mutation as an independent risk factor for allogeneic transplant outcomes has previously been explored by several groups through single institution and multi-center registry studies, with inconsistent reports depending on the study population.9-31 Unfortunately, many of these studies have been restricted to cytogenetically normal AML, small sample sizes, or specific conditioning or donor types, thereby limiting the generalizability of the findings. While allogeneic HCT with the best available donor has become widely adopted as an important therapeutic option in AML patients with FLT3 mutation who achieve first complete remission (CR1), there may be additional patient, disease, or transplant-specific variables that increase relapse hazards.8 Therefore, in the present study, we investigated the impact of FLT3 mutational AML on relapse risk (RR), non-relapse mortality (NRM), disease-free survival (DFS), and overall survival outcomes following allogeneic HCT at a single institution between 2008 and 2014. The study design included a retrospective cohort analysis and detailed characterization of patient, disease, and transplant-specific factors by FLT3 mutational status (positive vs. negative).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Literature review

As the focus of this paper was on FLT3 mutational AML in allogeneic HCT, we conducted a literature search in PubMed/MEDLINE. The search was performed in January 2015 and was restricted to studies published in English within the last 20 years (1995–2015). Three MeSH terms, ‘transplantation,’ ‘FLT3,’ and ‘acute myelogenous leukemia’ were used in the search, in addition to various combinations of ‘HCT,’ ‘FMS-like tyrosine kinase 3,’ ‘acute myeloid leukemia,’ and ‘AML.’ The initial search resulted in a total of 300 articles. Two co-authors (YS and SWC) screened a random half set of the abstracts; 277 were determined as not meeting the inclusion criteria. Both authors read the full text of the remaining 23 papers. Each of these papers was reviewed in depth, with key outcomes summarized in Supplemental Table S1.

Study design

A retrospective cohort study was conducted on 262 pediatric and adult AML patients undergoing first-time allogeneic HCT between January 2008 and July 2014. The study was approved by the University of Michigan Institutional Review Board (IRBMED# HUM00095617). Informed consents were obtained from all subjects and data were collected under the IRBMED-approved protocol (IRBMED # HUM43287). Routine FLT3 mutational testing for AML began in 2008 at the University of Michigan. Twenty-three patients who either had FLT3-TKD mutation without FLT3-ITD or who received umbilical cord blood transplantation were excluded from the study to reduce potential confounding. An additional 65 patients who did not undergo FLT3 mutational testing were excluded from the analysis. Details of their patient, disease, and transplant-related characteristics and outcomes are provided in Supplemental Tables S2–S4. The total study population was 171 patients with known FLT3 mutational status (positive vs. negative). Cytogenetic and molecular testing (FLT3 and NPM1) was performed at the University of Michigan or at referring institutions.

Data abstraction of patient, disease, and transplant-related variables was performed through manual chart review of the Electronic Medical Record system (Careweb and MiChart/EPIC), supported by the University of Michigan Electronic Medical Record Search Engine (EMERSE). EMERSE is designed to comprehensively search all institutional clinical documents using specified search terms and queries.32 Documents screened by EMERSE were examined in further detail for relevant study data. Outcomes of the study included RR, graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), NRM, DFS, and overall survival.

Patient, disease, and transplant-related characteristics

Patient characteristics included age, gender, race, ethnicity, and body mass index (BMI) at the time of allogeneic HCT. A hematopoietic cell transplantation-specific comorbidity index (HCT-CI) score was calculated using documented clinical and laboratory data for each patient in the study, as previously described.33 Disease features included white blood cell (WBC) count at diagnosis, Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) cytogenetic risk based on karyotype at diagnosis (noting the presence or absence of complex cytogenetics [≥3 abnormalities]),34 NPM1 mutational status, antecedent myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) or myeloproliferative disorder, and therapy-related AML. Morphologic status at transplant, defined as persistent disease (≥5% blasts) vs. complete remission (<5% blasts), and cytogenetic remission status at transplant, defined as normal karyotype without clonal abnormalities, were also collected. Time from diagnosis to transplantation (infusion of allogeneic hematopoietic cells) was recorded (≥ vs. <180 days).

Transplant-related characteristics included number of pre-transplant chemotherapy cycles (induction and consolidation), conditioning intensity (myeloablative or reduced), use of thymoglobulin or alemtuzumab, total body irradiation (≥1200 cGy), stem cell source (bone marrow or peripheral blood), donor-recipient characteristics (gender, related or unrelated, human leukocyte antigen [HLA] matched [8/8] or mismatched [7/8], ABO and Rh blood type, and cytomegalovirus status), number of CD34+ cells transfused, and length of hospital stay. Additional characteristics included GVHD prophylaxis (calcineurin inhibitor [CNI]-methotrexate or CNI-mycophenolate mofetil) and time to neutrophil engraftment (defined as the first of three consecutive days with absolute neutrophil count [ANC] ≥500/mm3).

Statistical analysis

Statistical analyses were performed using R 3.02 (GNU General Public License) with α=0.05 defining the level of statistical significance (two-sided). Summary data were calculated for patient, disease, and transplant-related variables, with medians and ranges determined for continuous variables and counts and percentages calculated for categorical variables. The cohort was then sub-divided into two groups based on their FLT3 mutational status, and statistically significant differences between these groups were assessed using the Kruskal-Wallis test for continuous variables and the χ2 test of association for categorical variables. The Fine-Gray method35 was used to determine cumulative incidences with competing risks, which were then compared using the K-sample tests described by Gray.36 The Kaplan-Meier method was used to compute overall survival.37 Univariate regression methods (competing risks regression for RR, acute and chronic GVHD and NRM, and Cox regression for DFS and overall survival) were used to model the marginal associations of FLT3 mutational status and other patient, disease, and transplant-related variables with clinical outcomes. Bivariate models were used to further determine the joint association of FLT3 mutation and key variables with outcomes. Because complex cytogenetic changes are used in CIBMTR cytogenetic risk determination, this variable was excluded from bivariate and multivariate modeling. Morphologic status (persistent disease vs. CR) was also included in modeling because refractory disease status at the time of allogeneic HCT has previously been shown to be an independent poor prognostic factor.27 Multivariate regression models using backward selection were used to identify best-fitting models for outcomes containing FLT3 mutational status and other possible confounders identified in descriptive characteristics comparison and univariate and bivariate testing.

RESULTS

Characteristics by FLT3 mutational status

A total of 171 consecutive AML patients with available FLT3 mutational testing received first-time allogeneic HCT. The median age of the study population was 55 years (range, 1−72 years). Age, gender, race, BMI, and HCT-CI distributions were similar in patient groups with vs. without FLT3 mutation. The remaining patient and disease characteristics are detailed in Table 1.

Table 1.

Patient and Disease Characteristics by FLT3 Mutational Status

FLT3 Recorded FLT3 Negative FLT3 Positive P
Characteristics N (%) N (%) N (%)
Patients (count) 171 121 50
Age (years)
Median [Range] 55 [1 - 72] 55 [1 - 72] 54 [3 - 71] 0.519
<60 years 117 (68) 81 (67) 36 (72) 0.518
≥60 years 54 (32) 40 (33) 14 (28)
Gender
Female 75 (44) 51 (42) 24 (48) 0.483
Male 96 (56) 70 (58) 26 (52)
Race/Ethnicity
White (Non-Hispanic) 152 (89) 109 (90) 43 (86) 0.070
White (Hispanic) 6 (4) 4 (3) 2 (4)
Black 6 (4) 6 (5) 0 (0)
Asian 3 (2) 1 (1) 2 (4)
Other 4 (2) 1 (1) 3 (6)
BMI
<18.5 kg/m2 5 (3) 4 (3) 1 (2) 0.900
18.5-24.9 kg/m2 39 (23) 26 (21) 13 (26)
25.0-29.9 kg/m2 59 (35) 42 (35) 17 (34)
≥30.0 kg/m2 68 (40) 49 (40) 19 (38)
HCT-CI
Low Risk 34 (20) 22 (18) 12 (24) 0.630
Intermediate Risk 58 (34) 43 (36) 15 (30)
High Risk 79 (46) 56 (46) 23 (46)
WBC Count at Diagnosis
<10 ×103/μL 91 (53) 77 (64) 14 (28) <0.001
≥10 ×103/μL 78 (46) 43 (36) 35 (70)
Karyotype at Diagnosis, CIBMTR Risk
Low Risk 4 (2) 4 (3) 0 (0) 0.004
Intermediate Risk 123 (72) 82 (68) 41 (82)
High Risk 23 (13) 23 (19) 0 (0)
Unknown Risk 17 (10) 10 (8) 7 (14)
Complex Cytogenetics (≥3 abnormalities) at Diagnosis
No 142 (83) 94 (78) 48 (96) <0.001
Yes 25 (15) 25 (21) 0 (0)
Other Molecular Markers
NPM1
Negative 104 (61) 80 (66) 24 (48) <0.001
Positive 32 (19) 13 (11) 19 (38)
Antecedent MDS/MPD
No 136 (80) 90 (74) 46 (92) 0.009
Yes 35 (20) 31 (26) 4 (8)
Therapy-related AML
No 160 (94) 110 (91) 50 (100) 0.028
Yes 11 (6) 11 (9) 0 (0)
Morphologic Status at Transplant
Complete Remission 136 (80) 96 (79) 40 (80) 0.922
Persistent Disease 35 (20) 25 (21) 10 (20)
Time to Transplant (days)
≤ 180 117 (68) 82 (68) 35 (70) 0.775
> 180 54 (32) 39 (32) 15 (30)
Number of Induction Cycles Before Transplant
≤ 2 134 (78) 93 (77) 41 (82) 0.458
> 2 37 (22) 28 (23) 9 (18)
Total Number of Chemotherapy Cycles Before Transplant
Median [Range] 3 [0 - 10] 3 [0 - 9] 3 [1 - 10] 0.670
Open in a new tab

FLT3 mutational status (positive vs. negative)

BMI: body mass index; HCT-CI: Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation-Specific Comorbidity Index; WBC: white blood cell; CIBMTR: Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research; MDS: myelodysplastic syndrome; MPD: myeloproliferative disorder; AML: acute myelogenous leukemia

The groups were also similar in morphologic status at the time of HCT (persistent disease vs. CR), time from diagnosis to HCT (>180 days vs. ≤180), and number of induction (>2 vs. ≤2) and combined induction and consolidation chemotherapy cycles leading to HCT (median of 3 cycles for both groups). Significantly more FLT3 positive than FLT3 negative patients were in cytogenetic remission at the time of HCT (94% vs. 71%, P<0.01). As expected, the FLT3 mutated group had higher WBC counts (≥10,000/μL) at the time of diagnosis (70% vs. 36%, P<0.001), predominantly intermediate-risk CIBMTR cytogenetics with fewer instances of complex cytogenetics at diagnosis (0% vs. 21%, P<0.001), and higher co-occurrence with NPM1 mutation (38% vs. 11%, P<0.001). FLT3 mutation was less often observed in cases of preceding MDS or myeloproliferative disease (8% vs. 26%, P<0.01) and therapy-related AML (0% vs. 9%, P<0.05).

Transplant-related characteristics were also similar between the groups, including stem cell source, donor-recipient characteristics, conditioning intensity, use of thymoglobulin or alemtuzumab, total body irradiation, number of CD34+ cells transfused, length of hospital stay, GVHD prophylaxis, and time to neutrophil engraftment (Table 2).

Table 2.

Transplantation Characteristics by FLT3 Mutational Status

FLT3 Recorded FLT3 Negative FLT3 Positive P
Characteristics N (%) N (%) N (%)
Stem Cell Source
Bone Marrow 18 (11) 13 (11) 5 (10) 0.885
Peripheral Blood 153 (89) 108 (89) 45 (90)
Donor-Recipient HLA and Relation
Matched (8/8) Related 72 (42) 51 (42) 21 (42) 0.305
Matched Unrelated 77 (45) 57 (47) 20 (40)
Mismatched (<8/8) Related 2 (1) 2 (2) 0 (0)
Mismatched Unrelated 20 (12) 11 (9) 9 (18)
Donor-Recipient Gender
Male Donor, Male Recipient 61 (36) 45 (37) 16 (32) 0.638
Male Donor, Female Recipient 50 (29) 36 (30) 14 (28)
Female Donor, Male Recipient 34 (20) 24 (20) 10 (20)
Female Donor, Female Recipient 25 (15) 15 (12) 10 (20)
Donor-Recipient ABO Blood Type
Matched 108 (63) 77 (64) 31 (62) 0.055
Anti-recipient Antibodies 31 (18) 25 (21) 6 (12)
Anti-donor Antibodies 25 (15) 17 (14) 8 (16)
Anti-recipient and Anti-donor Antibodies 7 (4) 2 (2) 5 (10)
Donor-Recipient Rh Blood Type
Matched 138 (81) 100 (83) 38 (76) 0.369
Anti-recipient Antibodies 13 (8) 7 (6) 6 (12)
Anti-donor Antibodies 20 (12) 14 (12) 6 (12)
Donor-Recipient CMV
Recipient and Donor Negative 52 (30) 38 (31) 14 (28) 0.521
Recipient Negative and Donor Positive/Unknown 25 (15) 15 (12) 10 (20)
Recipient Positive/Unknown and Donor Negative 48 (28) 33 (27) 15 (30)
Recipient and Donor Positive/Unknown 46 (27) 35 (29) 11 (22)
Conditioning Intensity
Reduced Intensity 44 (26) 31 (26) 13 (26) 0.959
Myeloablative 127 (74) 90 (74) 37 (74)
Use of Thymoglobulin or Alemtuzumab
No 167 (98) 118 (98) 49 (98) 0.850
Yes 4 (2) 3 (2) 1 (2)
Use of Total Body Irradiation (≥1.2Gy)
No 165 (96) 117 (97) 48 (96) 0.822
Yes 6 (4) 4 (3) 2 (4)
CD34 Transfused (×106 cells/kg)
Median [Range] 5.5 [1.0 - 10.6] 5.6 [1.0 - 10.6] 5.3 [1.2 - 9.8] 0.232
GVHD Prophylaxis
CSA/Tac + MMF 69 (40) 54 (45) 15 (30) 0.072
CSA/Tac + MTX 101 (59) 67 (55) 34 (68)
Tac + Sirolimus 1 (1) 0 (0) 1 (2)
Length of Stay (days)
Median [Range] 22 [17 - 97] 22 [17 - 97] 22 [18 - 34] 0.729
Time to Engraftment (days)
Median [Range] 12 [4 - 23] 12 [4 - 23] 12 [7 - 15] 0.891
Open in a new tab

FLT3 mutational status (positive vs. negative)

HLA: human leukocyte antigen; CMV: cytomegalovirus; Gy: gray; GVHD: graft-versus-host disease; CSA: cyclosporine; Tac: tacrolimus; MMF: mycophenolate mofetil; MTX: methotrexate

Engraftment and neutrophil recovery

Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor was started six days after transplantation to promote neutrophil engraftment. The majority of surviving patients (>99%) engrafted within 50 days of allogeneic HCT (Table 2). There was one case of graft failure among patients without FLT3 mutation.

Risk of relapse

Figure 1 illustrates the 3-year cumulative incidence outcomes of the patient cohort following allogeneic HCT, stratified by FLT3 mutational status. Patients with FLT3 mutation experienced shorter median time to relapse (100 days, range: 25−495 days) compared with those without FLT3 mutation (121 days, range: 26−1,142 days). The risk of relapse at 3 years was significantly higher in FLT3 mutated patients (63% vs. 37%, P<0.001). Among the other variables tested, high HCT-CI, high CIBMTR cytogenetic risk, and complex cytogenetics were also significantly associated with increased RR at 3 years (Table 3). We also performed bivariate analyses to explore the individual interactions of FLT3 mutation with age, HCT-CI, CIBMTR cytogenetic risk, NPM1 status, number of induction chemotherapy cycles, morphologic status, and conditioning intensity, and found that FLT3 mutation remained a significant risk factor for relapse even after accounting for these other variables (Table 4). In the multivariate analysis, FLT3 mutation (hazard ratio [HR] 3.63, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.13, 6.19, P<0.001), high HCT-CI (HR 1.71, 95% CI: 1.04, 2.79, P<0.05), high CIBMTR cytogenetic risk (HR 2.97, 95% CI: 1.52, 5.77, P=0.001), and persistent morphologic disease at transplant (HR 2.61, 95% CI: 1.44, 4.74, P<0.01) variables were significantly associated with increased RR. Myeloablative conditioning (HR 0.39, 95% CI: 0.21, 0.72, P<0.01) was associated with decreased RR (Table 5).

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Three-year Cumulative Incidence Outcomes by FLT3 Mutational Status. A) Relapse Risk, B) Non-relapse Mortality, C) Disease-free Survival, D) Overall Survival Solid line: FLT3 mutation positive; Dashed line: FLT3 mutation negative

Table 3.

Univariate Analysis Results

Characteristics N 3-year RR P 1-year aGVHD (Grades 2–4) P 1-year cGVHD P 3-year NRM P 3-year DFS P 3-year Overall Survival P
All FLT3 Tested 171 45% 33% 49% 16% 39% 45%
Age
<60 years 117 45% 0.664 31% 0.780 46% 0.542 14% 0.514 41% 0.957 46% 0.544
≥60 years 54 44% 35% 53% 19% 37% 42%
HCT-CI
Low Risk 34 31% 0.033 36% 0.553 54% 0.398 14% 0.114 55% 0.139 58% 0.303
Intermediate Risk 58 37% 37% 45% 27% 37% 42%
High Risk 79 56% 28% 49% 10% 34% 42%
WBC Count at Diagnosis
<10 ×103/μL 91 43% 0.315 34% 0.996 54% 0.045 17% 0.707 40% 0.425 47% 0.801
≥10 ×103/μL 78 46% 33% 41% 16% 38% 41%
Karyotype at Diagnosis, CIBMTR Risk
Low 4 0% 0.007 0% 0.222 67% 0.536 0% 0.284 100% 0.001 100% <0.001
Intermediate 123 40% 32% 51% 15% 45% 49%
High 23 73% 37% 35% 14% 13% 25%
Unknown 17 46% 47% 44% 34% 19% 29%
Complex Cytogenetics (≥3 abnormalities) at Diagnosis
No 142 39% <0.001 34% 0.924 51% 0.527 17% 0.669 44% <0.001 48% <0.001
Yes 25 76% 34% 37% 13% 11% 28%
Molecular Markers Prior to Transplant
FLT3
Negative 121 37% <0.001 34% 0.715 54% 0.025 21% 0.012 41% 0.065 48% 0.334
Positive 50 63% 30% 36% 4% 32% 38%
NPM1
Negative 104 40% 0.525 32% 0.965 52% 0.095 18% 0.584 42% 0.801 47% 0.776
Positive 32 44% 32% 39% 16% 40% 42%
Conditioning Intensity
Reduced Intensity 44 53% 0.130 43% 0.156 48% 0.937 12% 0.293 35% 0.476 41% 0.431
Myeloablative 127 41% 29% 49% 17% 41% 46%
Use of Thymoglobulin or Alemtuzumab
No 167 45% 0.186 33% 0.205 48% 0.492 16% 0.227 39% 0.553 45% 0.748
Yes 4 0% 0% 67% 33% 67% 67%
Time to Transplant (days)
≤ 180 117 47% 0.347 35% 0.459 49% 0.492 13% 0.152 40% 0.978 49% 0.343
> 180 54 40% 28% 47% 22% 37% 36%
Number of Induction Cycles Before Transplant
≤ 2 134 43% 0.181 33% 0.704 51% 0.363 12% 0.020 46% 0.002 52% <0.001
> 2 37 53% 32% 41% 32% 15% 19%
Open in a new tab

FLT3 mutational status (positive vs. negative)

HCT-CI: Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation-Specific Comorbidity Index; WBC: white blood cell; CIBMTR: Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research; RR: relapse risk; aGVHD: acute graft-versus-host disease; cGVHD: chronic graft-versus-host disease; NRM: non-relapse mortality; DFS: disease-free survival

Table 4.

Bivariate Analysis Results

3-year RR
 1-year cGVHD
 3-year NRM
 3-year DFS
 3-year Overall Survival
Characteristics Hazard Ratio (95% CI) P Hazard Ratio (95% CI) P Hazard Ratio (95% CI) P Hazard Ratio (95% CI) P Hazard Ratio (95% CI) P
FLT3 (Positive vs. Negative) 2.25 (1.40,3.61) <0.001 0.55 (0.32,0.95) 0.031 0.20 (0.05,0.86) 0.031 1.49 (0.97,2.29) 0.066 1.26 (0.80,1.98) 0.316
Age (≥60 vs. <60 years) 0.93 (0.57,1.52) 0.770 1.19 (0.76,1.85) 0.450 1.24 (0.55,2.81) 0.610 1.01 (0.65,1.55) 0.981 1.16 (0.74,1.82) 0.507
FLT3 (Positive vs. Negative) 3.65 (2.11,6.33) <0.001 0.44 (0.25,0.78) 0.005 0.19 (0.04,0.81) 0.025 2.06 (1.30,3.27) 0.002 1.69 (1.04,2.75) 0.036
Karyotype at Diagnosis, CIBMTR Risk (High vs. Other) 4.22 (2.32,7.67) <0.001 0.52 (0.23,1.19) 0.120 0.64 (0.19,2.20) 0.480 2.97 (1.72,5.12) <0.001 2.72 (1.55,4.77) <0.001
FLT3 (Positive vs. Negative) 2.90 (1.68,5.02) <0.001 0.69 (0.37,1.29) 0.250 0.20 (0.04,0.89) 0.034 1.75 (1.06,2.89) 0.028 1.37 (0.81,2.34) 0.245
NPM1 (Positive vs. Negative) 0.86 (0.44,1.69) 0.660 0.68 (0.35,1.32) 0.250 1.19 (0.40,3.55) 0.760 0.89 (0.50,1.57) 0.682 0.97 (0.53,1.76) 0.921
FLT3 (Positive vs. Negative) 2.25 (1.39,3.63) <0.001 0.53 (0.31,0.92) 0.023 0.21 (0.05,0.89) 0.035 1.46 (0.95,2.24) 0.081 1.27 (0.81,2.00) 0.293
Number of Induction Cycles (>2 vs. ≤2) 1.43 (0.82,2.50) 0.210 0.65 (0.34,1.23) 0.190 2.30 (1.02,5.21) 0.045 1.99 (1.27,3.12) 0.003 2.29 (1.44,3.65) <0.001
FLT3 (Positive vs. Negative) 2.23 (1.39,3.56) <0.001 0.55 (0.32,0.94) 0.028 0.19 (0.04,0.84) 0.029 1.49 (0.97,2.28) 0.067 1.28 (0.81,2.02) 0.284
HCT-CI (High vs. Other) 1.83 (1.13,2.95) 0.013 1.02 (0.65,1.59) 0.930 0.51 (0.22,1.18) 0.120 1.37 (0.91,2.04) 0.130 1.31 (0.86,2.00) 0.214
FLT3 (Positive vs. Negative) 2.32 (1.44,3.75) <0.001 0.55 (0.32,0.94) 0.028 0.20 (0.05,0.84) 0.028 1.52 (0.99,2.33) 0.057 1.27 (0.81,1.99) 0.307
Conditioning Intensity (Myeloablative vs. Reduced) 0.64 (0.39,1.04) 0.074 0.91 (0.57,1.46) 0.700 1.62 (0.63,4.16) 0.320 0.83 (0.53,1.28) 0.392 0.82 (0.52,1.30) 0.393
FLT3 (Positive vs. Negative) 2.31 (1.48,3.62) <0.001 0.55 (0.32,0.94) 0.029 0.19 (0.04,0.84) 0.029 1.49 (0.97,2.28) 0.069 1.25 (0.80,1.97) 0.332
Morphologic Status (PD vs. CR) 2.09 (1.34,3.26) 0.001 0.65 (0.33,1.29) 0.220 2.22 (0.93,5.28) 0.071 2.65 (1.71,4.12) <0.001 2.45 (1.55,3.88) <0.001
Open in a new tab

FLT3 mutational status (positive vs. negative)

CIBMTR: Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research; HCT-CI: Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation-Specific Comorbidity Index; PD: persistent disease; CR: complete remission (morphologic); RR: relapse risk; cGVHD: chronic graft-versus-host disease; NRM: non-relapse mortality; DFS: disease-free survival; CI: confidence interval

Hazard ratios >1 indicate greater hazard for poor outcome (i.e., increased RR, cGVHD, and NRM and inferior DFS and overall survival)

Table 5.

Multivariate Analysis Results

N=167† 3-year RR
 1-year cGVHD
 3-year NRM
 3-year DFS
 3-year Overall Survival
Characteristics Hazard Ratio (95% CI) P Hazard Ratio (95% CI) P Hazard Ratio (95% CI) P Hazard Ratio (95% CI) P Hazard Ratio (95% CI) P
FLT3 (Positive vs. Negative) 3.63 (2.13,6.19) <0.001 0.44 (0.25,0.78) 0.005 0.21 (0.05,0.92) 0.038 2.05 (1.29,3.27) 0.003 1.92 (1.14,3.24) 0.014
Age (≥60 vs. <60) 0.64 (0.39,1.06) 0.081 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Karyotype at Diagnosis, CIBMTR Risk (High vs. Other) 2.97 (1.52,5.77) 0.001 0.52 (0.23,1.19) 0.120 N/A N/A 2.35 (1.34,4.10) 0.003 1.93 (1.08,3.48) 0.028
Number of Induction Cycles (>2 vs. ≤2) N/A N/A N/A N/A 1.98 (0.90,4.34) 0.089 1.73 (1.07,2.78) 0.025 1.87 (1.14,3.09) 0.014
HCT-CI (High vs. Other) 1.71 (1.04,2.79) 0.034 N/A N/A 0.49 (0.21,1.14) 0.098 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Conditioning Intensity (Myeloablative vs. Reduced) 0.39 (0.21,0.72) 0.003 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.57 (0.35,0.95) 0.032 0.55 (0.33,0.94) 0.029
Morphologic Status (PD vs. CR) 2.61 (1.44,4.74) 0.002 N/A N/A 1.98 (0.88,4.47) 0.100 2.52 (1.51,4.21) <0.001 2.15 (1.23,3.78) 0.008
Open in a new tab

FLT3 mutational status (positive vs. negative)

CIBMTR: Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research; HCT-CI: Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation-Specific Comorbidity Index; PD: persistent disease; CR: complete remission (morphologic); RR: relapse risk; cGVHD: chronic graft-versus-host disease; NRM: non-relapse mortality; DFS: disease-free survival; CI: confidence interval; N/A: not applicable (addition of characteristic did not improve fit of the multivariate model)

Hazard ratios >1 indicate greater hazard for poor outcome (i.e., increased RR, cGVHD, and NRM and inferior DFS and overall survival)

†

Data were available for all characteristics included in the multivariate model for 167 of 171 patients with FLT3 mutational status recorded.

GVHD (Acute and Chronic)

The median time to onset of grade 2−4 acute GVHD in the study population was 36 days (range: 10−180 days) and the cumulative incidence at one year after HCT was 33%, which was similar in patients with vs. without FLT3 mutation (30% vs. 34%, respectively, P=0.715). None of the other variables tested in the univariate analysis was significantly associated with 1-year acute GVHD outcomes (Table 3).

We also assessed the impact of FLT3 mutational status on chronic GVHD. The median onset of chronic GVHD in the study population was 161 days (range: 52−580 days) with a cumulative incidence of 49% at one year following HCT, which was significantly lower among patients with vs. without FLT3 mutation (36% vs. 54%, P<0.05). WBC count ≥10,000/μL at diagnosis was also associated with decreased risk of chronic GVHD (41% vs. 54%, P<0.05). In the bivariate analysis, FLT3 mutation was associated with significantly lower incidence of chronic GVHD, even after adjusting for age, HCT-CI score, CIBMTR cytogenetic risk, number of induction cycles, morphologic status, and conditioning intensity (Table 4). Additionally, after incorporating all of these characteristics in the multivariate model, FLT3 mutation remained the only variable significantly associated with decreased risk of chronic GVHD (HR 0.44, 95% CI: 0.25, 0.78, P<0.01, Table 5).

Non-relapse Mortality

NRM at 3 years was significantly lower in patients with FLT3 mutation (4% vs. 21%, respectively, P<0.05, Figure 1). While time from AML diagnosis to HCT (>180 days vs. ≤180 days) did not impact the risk of NRM, patients who received >2 induction chemotherapy cycles experienced higher NRM (32% vs. 12%, respectively, P<0.05; Table 3). On bivariate testing, FLT3 mutation remained significantly associated with decreased NRM after adjusting for age, HCT-CI, CIBMTR cytogenetic risk, NPM1 status, number of induction cycles, morphologic status, and conditioning intensity (Table 4). This finding was also seen in the multivariate analysis (HR 0.21, 95% CI: 0.05, 0.92, P<0.05).

Disease-free Survival

FLT3 mutational status was associated with a trend toward inferior DFS at 3 years (FLT3 mutation: 32% vs. no FLT3 mutation: 41%, P=0.065, Figure 1). CIBMTR cytogenetic risk (high: 13% vs. intermediate: 45% vs. low: 100%, P=0.001), complex cytogenetics (≥3 abnormalities at diagnosis: 11% vs. <3 abnormalities: 44%, P<0.001), and number of induction cycles (>2 inductions: 15% vs. ≤2 inductions: 46%, P<0.01) variables at diagnosis were associated with significantly decreased DFS (Table 3). In the bivariate models, FLT3 mutation was shown to negatively impact DFS when adjusting for CIBMTR cytogenetic risk and NPM1 status variables only (Table 4). However, in the multivariate model that accounted for the interaction of multiple potential confounders, FLT3 mutation (HR 2.05, 95% CI: 1.29, 3.27, P<0.01), high CIBMTR cytogenetic risk (HR 2.35, 95% CI: 1.34, 4.10, P<0.01), >2 two induction cycles (HR 1.73, 95% CI: 1.07, 2.78, P<0.05), and persistent morphologic disease at time of transplant (HR 2.52, 95% CI: 1.51, 4.21, P<0.001) were all found to be significantly associated with inferior DFS (Table 5).

Overall survival

The 3-year overall survival was decreased among patients with vs. without FLT3 mutation, but the difference was not statistically significant (38% vs. 48%, P=0.334, Figure 1) with a median survival of 244 days (range: 57 to 2,001 days) and 368 days (range: 46 to 2,405 days), respectively. Among the other variables tested, high CIBMTR cytogenetic risk, presence of complex cytogenetics at diagnosis, and >2 induction chemotherapy cycles were each associated with significantly lower 3-year overall survival (Table 3). In the bivariate models, FLT3 mutation negatively impacted overall survival (HR 1.69, 95% CI: 1.04, 2.75, P<0.05) after adjusting for CIBMTR cytogenetic risk at diagnosis only (Table 4). However, when accounting for all potential confounders in the multivariate model, FLT3 mutation (HR 1.92, 95% CI 1.14, 3.24, P<0.05), high CIBMTR cytogenetic risk (HR 1.93, 95% CI 1.08, 3.48, P<0.05), >2 induction cycles (HR 1.87, 95% CI: 1.14, 3.09, P<0.05), and persistent morphologic disease at transplant (HR 2.15, 95% CI 1.23, 3.78, P<0.01) variables significantly decreased overall survival (Table 5). All causes of mortality are detailed in Supplemental Table S5.

DISCUSSION

In this study, we examined the frequency of FLT3 mutation in children and adults with AML who underwent allogeneic HCT at our center over a 7-year study period. Patients diagnosed before 2007 were not genetically defined at diagnosis for this mutation. Given conflicting reports,9-31 we sought to further clarify the impact of FLT3 mutational status on HCT outcomes in a large, single institution cohort transplanted between 2008 and 2014. Consistent with the literature, FLT3 mutated patients comprised approximately 29% of our study population.2-4 We found that FLT3 mutation was an independent factor for increased RR that translated into inferior DFS and overall survival after adjusting for potential confounding covariates. The low NRM was likely due to a higher RR, which is a competing risk for NRM. The present findings extend the observations from previous studies that have reported the outcomes of FLT3 mutational AML after allogeneic HCT (Supplemental Table S1) and substantiate the need for optimizing risk stratification of AML patients at the time of transplant.

Cytogenetic characterization at diagnosis is recognized as the most powerful independent prognostic factor in AML. In recent years, risk-stratification has been refined by molecular markers, such as the FLT3 gene. Herein, our data support the importance of carefully characterizing disease-specific variables in AML patients presenting for allogeneic transplantation. Our analyses demonstrate that, in addition to FLT3 mutation, high-risk CIBMTR cytogenetics at diagnosis and persistent morphologic disease at transplant conferred an increased RR and lowered DFS and overall survival.

Recently, the number of induction courses required to achieve morphologic remission in AML was shown to provide independent prognostic information for outcome after transplant.38 We therefore included this variable in our analyses and similarly demonstrated that patients who received greater than two induction cycles experienced decreased DFS and overall survival. These data provide insight into disease-specific factors that independently contribute to relapse and highlight the need to identify allogeneic HCT candidates for risk-stratified treatment recommendations. For example, patients who are destined to relapse early after allogeneic HCT (FLT3 mutation, high CIBMTR risk cytogenetics, and/or persistent morphologic disease) may benefit from post-transplant interventions or other non-transplant clinical trial options. Unfortunately, there remains a paucity of prospective, multi-center studies that have rigorously evaluated such strategies, such as donor leukocyte infusions,39 targeted therapies,40 hypomethylating agents,41 or other immune checkpoint blockade therapy.42 The optimal timing, dosing, duration, and type of strategy in the post-transplant setting are unknown and need to be explored.

Interestingly, FLT3 mutated patients with intermediate CIBMTR cytogenetic risk experienced increased RR similar to those with high CIBMTR cytogenetic risk (data not shown). However, DFS and overall survival were not as comparably reduced as seen in the high CIBMTR cytogenetic risk group. These data again highlight the potential role for implementing pre-emptive FLT3-targeted therapies to reduce the relapse hazard in these molecularly defined patients.

Similar to recent studies examining the influence of age on allogeneic HCT outcomes,50 our study did not indicate that patients >60 years of age experienced increased relapse or decreased survival. It is possible that our data represent selection of older individuals with greater fitness who met institutional criteria for allogeneic HCT or treatment according to a clinical trial. Nonetheless, we further explored other patient-specific comorbid conditions as measured by the HCT-CI33 to help estimate outcomes following transplant and found that high HCT-CI was associated with increased RR. Although not statistically significant, this resulted in a trend toward inferior DFS and overall survival. Allogeneic HCT is increasingly offered to older patients, and identifying suitable patients could improve the effectiveness of transplantation. In our study, myeloablative conditioning was associated with lower RR and increased DFS and overall survival, suggesting a potentially protective effect in this population. It is possible that a subset of chronologically older age individuals would benefit from and tolerate increased intensity regimens. Nonetheless, we recognize that further work is needed to confirm our observations.

We recognize the limitation of our single-center, retrospective cohort study. Nonetheless, allogeneic HCT is increasingly a preferred treatment option for FLT3 mutational AML patients, particularly with increased availability of donors and use of reduced intensity conditioning regimens, and such studies provide direction for well-designed prospective clinical trials. There is ongoing need to develop novel, preemptive post-transplant strategies in the setting of clinical research, particularly for high-risk AML, to help address malignant relapse.52 Our study supports the recognition of FLT3 mutation as an independent marker for high-risk disease and highlights the importance of carefully examining disease, patient, and transplant-specific variables, collectively, to identify suitable allogeneic HCT candidates and inform post-transplant expectations. Furthermore, minimal residual disease monitoring has been increasingly recognized as a source of additional valuable prognostic information that complements molecular and cytogenetic risk,53 and combined utilization of these factors may prove crucial to optimal prognostication.

Strengths of our study include transplant practices in the current era (2008 to 2014) with detailed patient, disease, and transplant-specific variables. To our knowledge, based on the literature review (detailed in Supplemental Table S1), the present analysis represents one of the largest study populations with known FLT3 mutational status that have undergone allogeneic HCT with the best available donor (related or unrelated) after either myeloablative or reduced intensity conditioning. At the same time, we recognize that the heterogeneity of this patient population is also a limitation, precluding us from forming generalized conclusions, such as in pediatric patients. We performed a sub-group analysis of children <18 years of age, and although the sample size was small, we observed similar trends in outcomes between the overall study population and pediatric patients (data not shown). We attempted to control for potential confounding covariates by performing both bivariate and multivariate analyses. Clearly, future studies are needed with larger populations from multi-center collaborations to confirm the observations herein.

In summary, the key finding of this study is the adverse outcomes associated with FLT3 mutant AML. The data herein highlight the early kinetics of malignant relapse occurring within the first 100 days of transplanted patients. Therefore, it is desirable to develop novel post-transplant strategies that could effectively impact early relapse hazards.

Supplementary Material

1
2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We are grateful to the patients, their families, and the clinical personnel who participated in this study. We thank Tracey Churay and Ashley Crouch and the BMT Program Team at the University of Michigan Clinical Trials Office for data collection and management. SWC is an A. Alfred Taubman Institute/Edith Briskin/SKS Foundation Emerging Scholar. SWC is supported by a grant from the National Institutes of Health (1K23AI091623).

Footnotes

FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

Conflicts of interest: none

AUTHORSHIP

Y.S. collected and analyzed data, and drafted and approved the manuscript; Y.L. analyzed data and approved the manuscript; L.C., D.A.H., K.A.C, and E.G. collected data and approved the manuscript; D.C., S.G., A.P., P.R., M.R., J.C., A.H., C.K., J.L., and G.Y. cared for patients and approved the manuscript; T.B. designed the study, analyzed data, and approved the manuscript; J.M., B.P., and D.B. designed the study, cared for patients, and approved the manuscript. S.W.C. designed the study, cared for patients, collected and analyzed data, and drafted and approved the manuscript.

Supplementary information is available at the journal's website.

REFERENCES

  • 1.Schlenk RF, Pasquini MC, Perez WS, Zhang MJ, Krauter J, Antin JH, et al. HLA-identical sibling allogeneic transplants versus chemotherapy in acute myelogenous leukemia with t(8;21) in first complete remission: collaborative study between the German AML Intergroup and CIBMTR. Biology of blood and marrow transplantation : journal of the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation. 2008;14(2):187–196. doi: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2007.10.006. doi: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2007.10.006. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Schnittger S, Schoch C, Dugas M, Kern W, Staib P, Wuchter C, et al. Analysis of FLT3 length mutations in 1003 patients with acute myeloid leukemia: correlation to cytogenetics, FAB subtype, and prognosis in the AMLCG study and usefulness as a marker for the detection of minimal residual disease. Blood. 2002;100(1):59–66. doi: 10.1182/blood.v100.1.59. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Frohling S, Schlenk RF, Breitruck J, Benner A, Kreitmeier S, Tobis K, et al. Prognostic significance of activating FLT3 mutations in younger adults (16 to 60 years) with acute myeloid leukemia and normal cytogenetics: a study of the AML Study Group Ulm. Blood. 2002;100(13):4372–4380. doi: 10.1182/blood-2002-05-1440. doi: 10.1182/blood-2002-05-1440. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Kottaridis PD, Gale RE, Frew ME, Harrison G, Langabeer SE, Belton AA, et al. The presence of a FLT3 internal tandem duplication in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) adds important prognostic information to cytogenetic risk group and response to the first cycle of chemotherapy: analysis of 854 patients from the United Kingdom Medical Research Council AML 10 and 12 trials. Blood. 2001;98(6):1752–1759. doi: 10.1182/blood.v98.6.1752. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Yamamoto Y, Kiyoi H, Nakano Y, Suzuki R, Kodera Y, Miyawaki S, et al. Activating mutation of D835 within the activation loop of FLT3 in human hematologic malignancies. Blood. 2001;97(8):2434–2439. doi: 10.1182/blood.v97.8.2434. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Whitman SP, Archer KJ, Feng L, Baldus C, Becknell B, Carlson BD, et al. Absence of the wild-type allele predicts poor prognosis in adult de novo acute myeloid leukemia with normal cytogenetics and the internal tandem duplication of FLT3: a cancer and leukemia group B study. Cancer research. 2001;61(19):7233–7239. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Pasquini MC, Wang Z. Current use and outcome of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation: CIBMTR Summary Slides. 2013 [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Vyas P, Appelbaum FR, Craddock C. Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation for acute myeloid leukemia. Biology of blood and marrow transplantation : journal of the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation. 2015;21(1):8–15. doi: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2014.10.026. doi: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2014.10.026. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Gale RE, Hills R, Kottaridis PD, Srirangan S, Wheatley K, Burnett AK, et al. No evidence that FLT3 status should be considered as an indicator for transplantation in acute myeloid leukemia (AML): an analysis of 1135 patients, excluding acute promyelocytic leukemia, from the UK MRC AML10 and 12 trials. Blood. 2005;106(10):3658–3665. doi: 10.1182/blood-2005-03-1323. doi: 10.1182/blood-2005-03-1323. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Bornhauser M, Illmer T, Schaich M, Soucek S, Ehninger G, Thiede C, et al. Improved outcome after stem-cell transplantation in FLT3/ITD-positive AML. Blood. 2007;109(5):2264–2265. doi: 10.1182/blood-2006-09-047225. author reply 2265. doi: 10.1182/blood-2006-09-047225. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Doubek M, Muzik J, Szotkowski T, Koza V, Cetkovsky P, Kozak T, et al. Is FLT3 internal tandem duplication significant indicator for allogeneic transplantation in acute myeloid leukemia? An analysis of patients from the Czech Acute Leukemia Clinical Register (ALERT). Neoplasma. 2007;54(1):89–94. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Schlenk RF, Dohner K, Krauter J, Frohling S, Corbacioglu A, Bullinger L, et al. Mutations and treatment outcome in cytogenetically normal acute myeloid leukemia. The New England journal of medicine. 2008;358(18):1909–1918. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa074306. doi: 101056/NEJMoa074306. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Kim YK, Kim HN, Lee SR, Ahn JS, Yang DH, Lee JJ, et al. Prognostic significance of nucleophosmin mutations and FLT3 internal tandem duplication in adult patients with cytogenetically normal acute myeloid leukemia. The Korean journal of hematology. 2010;45(1):36–45. doi: 10.5045/kjh.2010.45.1.36. doi: 10.5045/kjh.2010.45.1.36. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.DeZern AE, Sung A, Kim S, Smith BD, Karp JE, Gore SD, et al. Role of allogeneic transplantation for FLT3/ITD acute myeloid leukemia: outcomes from 133 consecutive newly diagnosed patients from a single institution. Biology of blood and marrow transplantation : journal of the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation. 2011;17(9):1404–1409. doi: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2011.02.003. doi: 101016/j.bbmt.2011.02.003. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Ehninger G, Bornhauser M, Kramer M, Rollig C, Wandt H, Hanel M, et al. A Strong Immune Effect by Allogeneic Stem Cell Transplantation May Improve Survival in AML Patients with a High Ratio of the FLT3-ITD Mutation to the Wt-FLT3 Allele: Results from an Analysis of 257 Patients Treated in the SAL AML-2003 Trial. ASH Annual Meeting Abstracts. 2011;118(21):497. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Kayser S, Zucknick M, Dohner K, Krauter J, Kohne CH, Horst HA, et al. Monosomal karyotype in adult acute myeloid leukemia: prognostic impact and outcome after different treatment strategies. Blood. 2012;119(2):551–558. doi: 10.1182/blood-2011-07-367508. doi: 101182/blood-2011-07-367508. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Brunet S, Labopin M, Esteve J, Cornelissen J, Socie G, Iori AP, et al. Impact of FLT3 internal tandem duplication on the outcome of related and unrelated hematopoietic transplantation for adult acute myeloid leukemia in first remission: a retrospective analysis. Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. 2012;30(7):735–741. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2011.36.9868. doi: 101200/JCO.2011.36.9868. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Sengsayadeth SM, Jagasia M, Engelhardt BG, Kassim A, Strickland SA, Goodman S, et al. Allo-SCT for high-risk AML-CR1 in the molecular era: impact of FLT3/ITD outweighs the conventional markers. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2012;47(12):1535–1537. doi: 10.1038/bmt.2012.88. doi: 10.1038/bmt.2012.88. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Laboure G, Dulucq S, Labopin M, Tabrizi R, Guerin E, Pigneux A, et al. Potent graft-versus-leukemia effect after reduced-intensity allogeneic SCT for intermediate-risk AML with FLT3-ITD or wild-type NPM1 and CEBPA without FLT3-ITD. Biology of blood and marrow transplantation : journal of the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation. 2012;18(12):1845–1850. doi: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2012.06.012. doi: 101016/j.bbmt.2012.06.012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Guieze R, Cornillet-Lefebvre P, Lioure B, Blanchet O, Pigneux A, Recher C, et al. Role of autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation according to the NPM1/FLT3-ITD molecular status for cytogenetically normal AML patients: a GOELAMS study. American journal of hematology. 2012;87(12):1052–1056. doi: 10.1002/ajh.23311. doi: 101002/ajh.23311. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Pfeiffer T, Schleuning M, Mayer J, Haude KH, Tischer J, Buchholz S, et al. Influence of molecular subgroups on outcome of acute myeloid leukemia with normal karyotype in 141 patients undergoing salvage allogeneic stem cell transplantation in primary induction failure or beyond first relapse. Haematologica. 2013;98(4):518–525. doi: 10.3324/haematol.2012.070235. doi: 10.3324/haematol.2012.070235. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Lin PH, Lin CC, Yang HI, Li LY, Bai LY, Chiu CF, et al. Prognostic impact of allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for acute myeloid leukemia patients with internal tandem duplication of FLT3. Leukemia research. 2013;37(3):287–292. doi: 10.1016/j.leukres.2012.10.005. doi: 10.1016/j.leukres.2012.10.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Pratcorona M, Brunet S, Nomdedeu J, Ribera JM, Tormo M, Duarte R, et al. Favorable outcome of patients with acute myeloid leukemia harboring a low allelic burden FLT3-ITD mutation and concomitant NPM1 mutation: relevance to post-remission therapy. Blood. 2013;121(14):2734–2738. doi: 10.1182/blood-2012-06-431122. doi: 10.1182/blood-2012-06-431122. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Burke MJ, Wagner JE, Cao Q, Ustun C, Verneris MR. Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation in first remission abrogates poor outcomes associated with high-risk pediatric acute myeloid leukemia. Biology of blood and marrow transplantation : journal of the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation. 2013;19(7):1021–1025. doi: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2013.04.001. doi: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2013.04.001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Liu YC, Hsiao HH, Lin PM, Yang WC, Chang CS, Liu TC, et al. Prognostic implication of molecular aberrations in cytogenetically normal acute myeloid leukemia patients receiving allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Genetics and molecular research : GMR. 2013;12(4):5414–5423. doi: 10.4238/2013.November.11.3. doi: 104238/2013.November.11.3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Yang Z, Tian H, Xu Y, Qiu H, Chen S, Sun A, et al. [Clinical outcome of FLT3-ITD (+) acute myeloid leukemia patients treated with allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation]. Zhonghua nei ke za zhi. 2014;53(2):94–98. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Chou SC, Tang JL, Hou HA, Chou WC, Hu FC, Chen CY, et al. Prognostic implication of gene mutations on overall survival in the adult acute myeloid leukemia patients receiving or not receiving allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantations. Leukemia research. 2014;38(11):1278–1284. doi: 10.1016/j.leukres.2014.08.012. doi: 101016/j.leukres.2014.08.012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Locatelli F, Masetti R, Rondelli R, Zecca M, Fagioli F, Rovelli A, et al. Outcome of children with high-risk acute myeloid leukemia given autologous or allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation in the aieop AML-2002/01 study. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2014 doi: 10.1038/bmt.2014.246. doi: 10.1038/bmt.2014.246. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Schlenk RF, Kayser S, Bullinger L, Kobbe G, Casper J, Ringhoffer M, et al. Differential impact of allelic ratio and insertion site in FLT3-ITD-positive AML with respect to allogeneic transplantation. Blood. 2014;124(23):3441–3449. doi: 10.1182/blood-2014-05-578070. doi: 101182/blood-2014-05-578070. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Schetelig J, Schaich M, Schafer-Eckart K, Hanel M, Aulitzky WE, Einsele H, et al. Hematopoietic cell transplantation in patients with intermediate and high-risk AML - results from the randomized study alliance leukemia (SAL) AML 2003 trial. Leukemia. 2014 doi: 10.1038/leu.2014.335. doi: 10.1038/leu.2014.335. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Schechter T, Gassas A, Chen H, Pollard J, Meshinchi S, Zaidman I, et al. The Outcome of Allogeneic Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation for Children with FMS-Like Tyrosine Kinase 3 Internal Tandem Duplication-Positive Acute Myelogenous Leukemia. Biology of blood and marrow transplantation : journal of the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation. 2015;21(1):172–175. doi: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2014.08.008. doi: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2014.08.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Hanauer DA. EMERSE: The Electronic Medical Record Search Engine. AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings / AMIA Symposium. AMIA Symposium. 2006:941. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Sorror ML, Maris MB, Storb R, Baron F, Sandmaier BM, Maloney DG, et al. Hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT)-specific comorbidity index: a new tool for risk assessment before allogeneic HCT. Blood. 2005;106(8):2912–2919. doi: 10.1182/blood-2005-05-2004. doi: 101182/blood-2005-05-2004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Slovak ML, Kopecky KJ, Cassileth PA, Harrington DH, Theil KS, Mohamed A, et al. Karyotypic analysis predicts outcome of preremission and postremission therapy in adult acute myeloid leukemia: a Southwest Oncology Group/Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Study. Blood. 2000;96(13):4075–4083. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Fine JP, Gray RJ. A proportional hazards model for the subdistribution of a competing risk. J Am Stat Assoc. 1999;94:496–509. [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Gray RJ. A class of K-sample tests for comparing the cumulative incidence of a competing risk. Ann Stat. 1988;16:1141–1154. [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Kaplan EL, Meier P. Nonparametric-estimation from incomplete observations. J Am Stat Assoc. 1958;53:457–481. [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Walter RB, Sandmaier BM, Storer BE, Godwin CD, Buckley SA, Pagel JM, et al. Number of courses of induction therapy independently predicts outcome after allogeneic transplantation for acute myeloid leukemia in first morphological remission. Biology of blood and marrow transplantation : journal of the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation. 2015;21(2):373–378. doi: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2014.09.022. doi: 101016/j.bbmt.2014.09.022. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Schroeder T, Rachlis E, Bug G, Stelljes M, Klein S, Steckel NK, et al. Treatment of Acute Myeloid Leukemia or Myelodysplastic Syndrome Relapse after Allogeneic Stem Cell Transplantation with Azacitidine and Donor Lymphocyte Infusions-A Retrospective Multicenter Analysis from the German Cooperative Transplant Study Group. Biology of blood and marrow transplantation : journal of the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation. 2014 doi: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2014.12.016. e-pub ahead of print 2014/12/30; doi: S1083-8791(14)01416-5 [pii] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Chen YB, Li S, Lane AA, Connolly C, Del Rio C, Valles B, et al. Phase I trial of maintenance sorafenib after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for fms-like tyrosine kinase 3 internal tandem duplication acute myeloid leukemia. Biology of blood and marrow transplantation : journal of the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation. 2014;20(12):2042–2048. doi: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2014.09.007. doi: 101016/j.bbmt.2014.09.007. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Platzbecker U, Wermke M, Radke J, Oelschlaegel U, Seltmann F, Kiani A, et al. Azacitidine for treatment of imminent relapse in MDS or AML patients after allogeneic HSCT: results of the RELAZA trial. Leukemia. 2012;26(3):381–389. doi: 10.1038/leu.2011.234. e pub ahead of print 2011/09/03; doi: 10.1038/leu.2011.234. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Brahmer JR, Tykodi SS, Chow LQ, Hwu WJ, Topalian SL, Hwu P, et al. Safety and activity of anti-PD-L1 antibody in patients with advanced cancer. The New England journal of medicine. 2012;366(26):2455–2465. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1200694. e-pub ahead of print 2012/06/05; doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1200694. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Antar A, Kharfan-Dabaja MA, Mahfouz R, Bazarbachi A. Sorafenib Maintenance Appears Safe and Improves Clinical Outcomes in FLT3-ITD Acute Myeloid Leukemia After Allogeneic Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation. Clinical lymphoma, myeloma & leukemia. 2014 doi: 10.1016/j.clml.2014.12.005. doi: 10.1016/j.clml.2014.12.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Sharma M, Ravandi F, Bayraktar UD, Chiattone A, Bashir Q, Giralt S, et al. Treatment of FLT3-ITD-positive acute myeloid leukemia relapsing after allogeneic stem cell transplantation with sorafenib. Biology of blood and marrow transplantation : journal of the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation. 2011;17(12):1874–1877. doi: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2011.07.011. doi: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2011.07.011. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Metzelder SK, Schroeder T, Finck A, Scholl S, Fey M, Gotze K, et al. High activity of sorafenib in FLT3-ITD-positive acute myeloid leukemia synergizes with allo-immune effects to induce sustained responses. Leukemia. 2012;26(11):2353–2359. doi: 10.1038/leu.2012.105. doi: 10.1038/leu.2012.105. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Takahashi K, Kantarjian H, Pemmaraju N, Andreeff M, Borthakur G, Faderl S, et al. Salvage therapy using FLT3 inhibitors may improve long-term outcome of relapsed or refractory AML in patients with FLT3-ITD. British journal of haematology. 2013;161(5):659–666. doi: 10.1111/bjh.12299. doi: 10.1111/bjh.12299. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Song G, Valdez BC, Li Y, Liu Y, Champlin RE, Andersson BS. Synergistic cytotoxicity of sorafenib with busulfan and nucleoside analogs in human FMS-like tyrosine kinase 3 internal tandem duplications-positive acute myeloid leukemia cells. Biology of blood and marrow transplantation : journal of the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation. 2014;20(11):1687–1695. doi: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2014.08.003. doi: 101016/j.bbmt.2014.08.003. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Wander SA, Levis MJ, Fathi AT. The evolving role of FLT3 inhibitors in acute myeloid leukemia: quizartinib and beyond. Therapeutic advances in hematology. 2014;5(3):65–77. doi: 10.1177/2040620714532123. doi: 10.1177/2040620714532123. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Zimmerman EI, Turner DC, Buaboonnam J, Hu S, Orwick S, Roberts MS, et al. Crenolanib is active against models of drug-resistant FLT3-ITD-positive acute myeloid leukemia. Blood. 2013;122(22):3607–3615. doi: 10.1182/blood-2013-07-513044. doi: 10.1182/blood-2013-07-513044. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Federmann B, Faul C, Meisner C, Vogel W, Kanz L, Bethge WA. Influence of age on outcome after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation: a single center study in patients aged 60. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2015 doi: 10.1038/bmt.2014.292. doi: 101038/bmt.2014.292. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Sorror ML, Storb RF, Sandmaier BM, Maziarz RT, Pulsipher MA, Maris MB, et al. Comorbidity-age index: a clinical measure of biologic age before allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation. Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. 2014;32(29):3249–3256. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2013.53.8157. doi: 101200/JCO.2013.53.8157. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Pavletic SZ, Kumar S, Mohty M, de Lima M, Foran JM, Pasquini M, et al. NCI First International Workshop on the Biology, Prevention, and Treatment of Relapse after Allogeneic Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation: report from the Committee on the Epidemiology and Natural History of Relapse following Allogeneic Cell Transplantation. Biology of blood and marrow transplantation : journal of the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation. 2010;16(7):871–890. doi: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2010.04.004. doi: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2010.04.004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Walter RB, Gooley TA, Wood BL, Milano F, Fang M, Sorror ML, et al. Impact of pretransplantation minimal residual disease, as detected by multiparametric flow cytometry, on outcome of myeloablative hematopoietic cell transplantation for acute myeloid leukemia. Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. 2011;29(9):1190–1197. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2010.31.8121. e-pub ahead of print 2011/02/02; doi: 10.1200/JCO.2010.31.8121. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

1
NIHMS699693-supplement-1.docx (61KB, docx)
2
NIHMS699693-supplement-2.pdf (178.8KB, pdf)

RESOURCES