Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2010 Jun 1;28(16):2739-47.
doi: 10.1200/JCO.2009.26.2501. Epub 2010 May 3.

Prognostic significance of CEBPA mutations in a large cohort of younger adult patients with acute myeloid leukemia: impact of double CEBPA mutations and the interaction with FLT3 and NPM1 mutations

Affiliations
Comparative Study

Prognostic significance of CEBPA mutations in a large cohort of younger adult patients with acute myeloid leukemia: impact of double CEBPA mutations and the interaction with FLT3 and NPM1 mutations

Claire L Green et al. J Clin Oncol. .

Abstract

Purpose: To determine the clinical relevance of mutations in the CCAAT/enhancer binding protein alpha (CEBPA) gene in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and to examine factors that might modify prognostic impact.

Patients and methods: The entire CEBPA coding sequence was screened in 1,427 young adult patients with AML, excluding acute promyelocytic leukemia, using denaturing high-performance liquid chromatography and direct sequencing.

Results: Of 107 patients (7%) with CEBPA mutations, 48 patients (45%) had one mutation (CEBPA-single), and 59 patients (55%) had two mutations (CEBPA-double). The incidence of CEBPA-double patients was similar in intermediate cytogenetic risk patients with and without a normal karyotype (6% and 5%, respectively). CEBPA-double patients had evidence of a lower coincidence with FLT3/ITDs (P = .04) and were highly unlikely to have an NPM1 mutation (P < .0001). CEBPA-double but not CEBPA-single patients had a significantly better overall survival (OS) at 8 years (34%, 31%, and 54% for CEBPA-wild-type [WT], CEBPA-single, and CEBPA-double, respectively, P = .004). This benefit was lost in the presence of a FLT3/ITD (OS for CEBPA-WT, CEBPA-single, and CEBPA-double FLT3/ITD-negative patients: 36%, 35%, 59%, respectively, P = .002; OS for CEBPA-WT, CEBPA-single, and CEBPA-double FLT3/ITD-positive patients: 26%, 21%, 14%, respectively, P = .05). There was no evidence of any additional favorable benefit for a CEBPA-single mutation in the presence of an NPM1 mutation (OS, 45%, 44%, and 56%, P = .2, for NPM1-positive/CEBPA-WT, NPM1-positive/CEBPA-single, and NPM1-negative/CEBPA-double patients, respectively).

Conclusion: Screening for CEBPA mutations can be restricted to patients with intermediate-risk cytogenetics lacking an FLT3/ITD or NPM1 mutation. Only the presence of a CEBPA-double mutation should be used for therapy risk stratification.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources