Background: Treatment-naive CLL patients displaying TP53 disruption (TP53 mutation and/or del(17p)) show heterogeneity in their clinical course. A few studies have proposed a mutated IGHV status and Rai 0 as potential factors for an indolent disease course in these cases.

Aim: To determine the prognostic impact of TP53 disruption in a treatment-naive CLL cohort and the factors associated with an indolent disease course.

Patients and Methods: 1,327 CLL patients at diagnosis or without prior treatment were screened both for TP53 mutations (mut) and del(17p). IGHV mutational status was analyzed in all cases. IGHV mutated status (IGHV-M) was defined by sequence identity <98%. Chromosome banding analysis and interphase FISH with probes for 13q14, 11q22 and centromeric region of chromosome 12 were performed in all cases. Additionally, data on mutations in SF3B1 (n=1,183) and NOTCH1 (n=967) was present. Male:female ratio was 2:1 and median age was 67 years (range: 30 - 91 years). Data on Binet stage was available in 711 cases. Follow-up data on time to first treatment (TTT) and overall survival (OS) was available in 1,123 (TP53 disruption: 84) and 1,143 (TP53 disruption: 88) cases, respectively, with a median follow-up of 6 years, each.

Results: Overall in 7% (97/1,327) of patients a TP53 disruption was present. TP53mut was detected in 89 (7%) of cases and del(17p) in 51 (4%). Three different combinations were determined: TP53mut with del(17p) in 43 (44%) cases, TP53mut sole in 46 (48%) patients and del(17p) sole in 8 (8%) cases. TP53 disruption was associated with IGHV-U vs. IGHV-M (12% vs. 5%, p<0.001), NOTCH1mut vs. NOTCH1wt (14% vs. 8%, p=0.027), complex karyotype (≥ 3 abnormalities) vs. non-complex karyotype (27% vs. 6%, p<0.001), and Binet B/C vs. A (10% vs. 5%, p=0.010). In contrast, TP53 disruption was rare in del(11q) vs. others (3% vs. 8%, p=0.046).

Next, we analyzed patients with TP53 disruption for differences in TTT and OS according to IGHV mutational status, SF3B1mut, NOTCH1mut, del(11q), trisomy 12, del(13q), complex karyotype and Binet stage. We detected a significantly longer TTT in IGHV-M cases (median: 10 vs. 2 years, p<0.001) and in patients without trisomy 12 (median: 6 vs. 2 years, p=0.046). A better 5-year OS was seen in cases with IGHV-M (76% vs. 57%, p=0.006) and in patients with Binet A vs. B/C (80% vs. 46%, p=0.049). Interestingly, in TP53 disruption/IGHV-M patients as compared to IGHV-M without TP53 disruption no significant difference in TTT was detected. In contrast, TP53 disruption/IGHV-M cases showed an intermediate 5-year OS comparable to IGHV-U without TP53 disruption, whereas patients with IGHV-U/TP53 disruption showed the most adverse OS (see Table). A cox regression analysis in TP53 disrupted cases including all the above mentioned factors showed significant impact only for IGHV-M both on TTT (HR: 0.24, p<0.001) and OS (HR: 0.38, p=0.008).

Therefore, we further focused on the characterization of patients with TP53 disruption/IGHV-M vs. TP53 disruption/IGHV-U. TP53 disruption/IGHV-M showed higher frequencies of del(13q) (71% vs. 45%, p=0.013), whereas del(17p) (39% vs. 63%, p=0.025) and trisomy 12 (2% vs. 23%, p=0.003) were less frequent. NOTCH1mut were mutually exclusive of TP53 disruption/IGHV-M (0% vs. 36%, p<0.001). Thus, within the cohort of TP53 disruption cases the subgroup with IGHV-M is characterized by the occurrence of adverse prognostic factors to a lesser extent.

Conclusions: Treatment-naive patients with TP53 disruption and IGHV-M show a more indolent disease course: (1) TTT was not significantly altered in comparison to IGHV-M cases without TP53 disruption; (2) for OS an additive effect of IGHV-U and TP53 disruption was detected with patients presenting with both factors showing the most adverse OS. Thus, in treatment-naive CLL patients TP53 disruption should always be evaluated on the background of IGHV mutational status and as recommended only at progression and before treatment is required.

graphic
View largeDownload slide
Disclosures

Jeromin:MLL Munich Leukemia Laboratory: Employment. Haferlach:MLL Munich Leukemia Laboratory: Employment, Equity Ownership. Dicker:Munich Leukemia Laboratory: Employment. Haferlach:MLL Munich Leukemia Laboratory: Employment, Equity Ownership. Kern:MLL Munich Leukemia Laboratory: Employment, Equity Ownership.

Topics:
indolent, mutation, protein p53, therapy naive, tp53 gene, leukemia, disease progression, karyotype determination procedure, follow-up, chromosome banding

Author notes

*

Asterisk with author names denotes non-ASH members.

© 2016 by The American Society of Hematology
2016
Sign in via your Institution