Predictive capacity of ten different classifications of abnormal karyotypes on the outcome of patients with secondary and de novo Acute Myeloid Leukemia from Latin-America

PERUSINI, AGUSTINA; GRILLÉ, SOFÍA; GONZALEZ, JACQUELINE; BELLI, CAROLINA; MIÑO, ALICIA; DIAZ, LILIAN; VILLAVERDE, NOELIA; CELEBRIN, LUCIA; IASTREBNER, MARCELO; LAZZARINO, CAROLINA; RIVAS, MARÍA M; CORREA, WALTER A; ENRICO, ALICIA; CABREJO, MARÍA; LALFACE, DIANA; BANDIN, M; FLORES, GABRIELA; ARBELBIDE, JORGE

Copenague

Simposio; 15th International Symposium on Myelodysplastic Syndromes; 2019

Myelodysplastic Foundation

Introduction:The stratification of molecular and cytogenetic aberrations according to the ELN2017 has proved useful in predicting the outcome in AML, nevertheless, some molecular determinations are no available for most hematologists in our media.Cytogenetic findings remain as an important parameter at decision-making-regarding-therapy. However, the stratification of abnormal intermediate and adverse karyotypes varies among previous studied cohorts or current recommendations, and that MDS-related changes according to WHO2016 are also important. Our aim was to evaluate the predictive capacity of different classifications of abnormal karyotypes in patients with AML.Methods:One-hundred-fifty-four patients were selected based on their intermediate/high-risk abnormal karyotypes, being 89pt (57.8%) classified as secondary (from a retrospective cohort of 600pt from 18 Latin-America centers diagnosed between Jan/11-May/18). The number of aberration was counted as recommended by the MRC and ten systems were applied.Results:The overall survival from the cohort (N154pt) was 5.8m which was significantly different from other findings [t(15;17): N64pt, not reached; CBF rearrangements: N46pt, 30.5m; normal: N227pt, 11m; p0.250). When other treatments were evaluated, the CECOG-SWOG-MDACC (6.9m vs 4.2m, p=0.008) and the ELN2010 (8.8m vs 4.3m, p=0.028) were able to discriminate both groups. These systems were compared in a multivariated model (Cox?s regression) and the adverse groups as adopted by the CECOG-SWOG-MDACC sustained its worst survival (HR1.8, p=0.014). No receiving treatment was associated with the worst outcome in both groups (Intermediate-1.0m and Adverse-0.5m vs. treated, p