Baseline characteristics of predicted good- and poor-outcome groups for overall survival
Characteristic . | Predicted good outcome, n = 34 . | Predicted poor outcome, n = 30 . | P . |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age, y, median (range) | 46 (21-59) | 44 (21-59) | .99 |
| Male sex, no. (%) | 19 (56) | 16 (53) | 1.00 |
| Race, no. (%) | .77 | ||
| White | 29 (85) | 27 (90) | |
| Hispanic | 3 (9) | 1 (3) | |
| African American | 1 (3) | 1 (3) | |
| Oriental | 0 (0) | 1 (3) | |
| Other | 1 (3) | 0 (0) | |
| Hemoglobin, g/L, median (range)* | 95 (68-121) | 86 (60-129) | .28 |
| Platelet count, × 109/L, median (range) | 48 (16-378) | 54 (12-250) | .89 |
| WBC count, × 109/L, median (range) | 37.7 (2.1-146.0) | 36.2 (3.7-295.0) | .37 |
| Percentage of PB blasts, median (range) | 62 (2-97) | 71 (24-95) | .09 |
| Percentage of BM blasts, median (range) | 61.5 (30-88) | 71.5 (37-90) | .16 |
| FAB, no. (%)† | .02 | ||
| M0 | 0 (0) | 1 (4) | |
| M1 | 8 (24) | 8 (29) | |
| M2 | 6 (18) | 7 (25) | |
| M4 | 10 (30) | 12 (43) | |
| M5 | 9 (27) | 0 (0) | |
| Extramedullary involvement, no. (%) | 19 (56) | 8 (27) | .02 |
| CNS | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | NA |
| Hepatomegaly | 3 (9) | 1 (3) | .61 |
| Splenomegaly | 3 (9) | 1 (3) | .61 |
| Lymphadenopathy | 6 (18) | 3 (10) | .48 |
| Skin infiltrates | 7 (21) | 2 (7) | .16 |
| Gingival hypertrophy | 10 (29) | 3 (10) | .07 |
| FLT3 status, no. (%)‡ | < .001 | ||
| Wild-type | 27 (82) | 10 (33) | |
| Internal tandem duplication | 6 (18) | 20 (67) | |
| MLL PTD positive, no. (%) | 1 (3) | 3 (10) | .33 |
| BAALC level, no. (%)§ | .58 | ||
| Low | 14 (58) | 13 (48) | |
| High | 10 (42) | 14 (52) | |
| CEBPA status, no. (%)¶ | .15 | ||
| Not mutated | 26 (79) | 28 (93) | |
| Mutated | 7 (21) | 2 (7) | |
| NPM1 status, no. (%)|| | .17 | ||
| Not mutated | 12 (36) | 6 (20) | |
| Mutated | 21 (64) | 24 (80) |
Characteristic . | Predicted good outcome, n = 34 . | Predicted poor outcome, n = 30 . | P . |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age, y, median (range) | 46 (21-59) | 44 (21-59) | .99 |
| Male sex, no. (%) | 19 (56) | 16 (53) | 1.00 |
| Race, no. (%) | .77 | ||
| White | 29 (85) | 27 (90) | |
| Hispanic | 3 (9) | 1 (3) | |
| African American | 1 (3) | 1 (3) | |
| Oriental | 0 (0) | 1 (3) | |
| Other | 1 (3) | 0 (0) | |
| Hemoglobin, g/L, median (range)* | 95 (68-121) | 86 (60-129) | .28 |
| Platelet count, × 109/L, median (range) | 48 (16-378) | 54 (12-250) | .89 |
| WBC count, × 109/L, median (range) | 37.7 (2.1-146.0) | 36.2 (3.7-295.0) | .37 |
| Percentage of PB blasts, median (range) | 62 (2-97) | 71 (24-95) | .09 |
| Percentage of BM blasts, median (range) | 61.5 (30-88) | 71.5 (37-90) | .16 |
| FAB, no. (%)† | .02 | ||
| M0 | 0 (0) | 1 (4) | |
| M1 | 8 (24) | 8 (29) | |
| M2 | 6 (18) | 7 (25) | |
| M4 | 10 (30) | 12 (43) | |
| M5 | 9 (27) | 0 (0) | |
| Extramedullary involvement, no. (%) | 19 (56) | 8 (27) | .02 |
| CNS | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | NA |
| Hepatomegaly | 3 (9) | 1 (3) | .61 |
| Splenomegaly | 3 (9) | 1 (3) | .61 |
| Lymphadenopathy | 6 (18) | 3 (10) | .48 |
| Skin infiltrates | 7 (21) | 2 (7) | .16 |
| Gingival hypertrophy | 10 (29) | 3 (10) | .07 |
| FLT3 status, no. (%)‡ | < .001 | ||
| Wild-type | 27 (82) | 10 (33) | |
| Internal tandem duplication | 6 (18) | 20 (67) | |
| MLL PTD positive, no. (%) | 1 (3) | 3 (10) | .33 |
| BAALC level, no. (%)§ | .58 | ||
| Low | 14 (58) | 13 (48) | |
| High | 10 (42) | 14 (52) | |
| CEBPA status, no. (%)¶ | .15 | ||
| Not mutated | 26 (79) | 28 (93) | |
| Mutated | 7 (21) | 2 (7) | |
| NPM1 status, no. (%)|| | .17 | ||
| Not mutated | 12 (36) | 6 (20) | |
| Mutated | 21 (64) | 24 (80) |
WBC indicates white blood cell; PB, peripheral blood; BM, bone marrow; FAB, French-American-British classification; CNS, central nervous system; MLL PTD, partial tandem duplication of the MLL gene; NA, not applicable
For 1 patient with predicted poor outcome, hemoglobin level was unknown
For 1 patient with predicted good outcome, and 2 patients with predicted poor outcome, FAB classification was unknown
For 1 patient with predicted good outcome, FLT3 status was unknown
For 10 patients with predicted good outcome, and 3 patients with predicted poor outcome, BAALC level was unknown
For 1 patient with predicted good outcome, CEBPA status was unknown
For 1 patient with predicted good outcome, NPM1 status was unknown