Back

Differences in prognostic value of FLT3 and NPM1 mutations in older and younger patient populations with acute myeloid leukemia

Mosse, C.; Lenoue-Newton, M.; Lynch, J.; Perkins, A.; Fitzhenry, F.; Pridgen, K.; Minter, F.; Levy, M.; Matheny, M. E.

2025-11-17 oncology
10.1101/2025.11.16.25340236
Show abstract

The prognostic value of nucleophosmin-1 (NPM1) and fms-like tyrosine kinase 3 (FLT3) mutations has been well-established in adult patients but is less clear in geriatric patients. This retrospective cohort study assessed adult patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) who received FLT3 and/or NPM1 testing treated at any Veterans Health Administration (VHA) facility or at Vanderbilt University Medical Center (VUMC) between January 2006 and December 2016. The primary analysis compared time to all-cause death among patients with AML based on FLT3 and NPM1 mutation status, age (<65 years, [&ge;]65 years), and cytogenetic risk group (unfavorable, intermediate/normal, favorable). The study population (n=766) (mean age 59.71 {+/-} 16.6 years, 45.96% [&ge;]65 years) had a mutation rate of 19.8% for FLT3 and 22.1% for NPM1. Age was a significant factor in overall survival (median OS: 24.28 vs. 8.18 months, p<0.001), as was cytogenetic risk status (median OS: favorable group not reached, intermediate/normal 17.61m vs. unfavorable 6.77m, p<0.001). The most favorable prognostic group (FLT3-/NPM1+) among older patients showed worse OS (15.21 months) than did the poor prognostic group (NPM1-/FLT3-) among younger patients (18.43 months). Among the older cohort, FLT3 and NPM1 mutation status, favorable karyotype, and CCI were not identified as prognostic factors. In the full cohort, using Cox proportional hazard regression and LASSO analyses for age, FLT3 and NPM1 mutation status, cytogenetic risk group, treatment site, race, primary payor, and Charleston Comorbidity Index (CCI), age (HR 65y vs 35y/=2.44, 95% CI 1.61-3.68, p<0.001) was the strongest risk factor in AML.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Leukemia
based on 11 papers
Top 0.1%
13.0%
2
PLOS ONE
based on 1737 papers
Top 39%
12.9%
3
Cancers
based on 57 papers
Top 2%
10.4%
4
JCO Precision Oncology
based on 11 papers
Top 0.1%
7.8%
5
JAMA Network Open
based on 125 papers
Top 4%
4.6%
6
British Journal of Haematology
based on 12 papers
Top 0.5%
3.0%
50% of probability mass above
7
Cancer Medicine
based on 17 papers
Top 1%
2.9%
8
Scientific Reports
based on 701 papers
Top 53%
2.9%
9
JAMA
based on 17 papers
Top 0.1%
2.6%
10
Nature Communications
based on 483 papers
Top 27%
2.3%
11
JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics
based on 14 papers
Top 2%
1.9%
12
Blood Advances
based on 16 papers
Top 0.6%
1.9%
13
Journal of Clinical Investigation
based on 50 papers
Top 2%
1.8%
14
International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics
based on 13 papers
Top 2%
1.8%
15
Clinical Cancer Research
based on 22 papers
Top 3%
1.6%
16
Neuro-Oncology Advances
based on 14 papers
Top 1%
1.6%
17
Frontiers in Oncology
based on 34 papers
Top 4%
1.6%
18
Aging
based on 18 papers
Top 2%
1.4%
19
Blood
based on 14 papers
Top 0.7%
1.4%
20
Clinical and Translational Medicine
based on 11 papers
Top 1%
1.2%
21
Journal for ImmunoTherapy of Cancer
based on 14 papers
Top 2%
0.8%
22
Journal of Personalized Medicine
based on 17 papers
Top 2%
0.8%
23
npj Precision Oncology
based on 14 papers
Top 4%
0.8%
24
Annals of Epidemiology
based on 19 papers
Top 2%
0.8%
25
Clinical Epigenetics
based on 21 papers
Top 2%
0.7%