Figure 1.
Figure 1. ELN 2017 and ELN 2010 Kaplan-Meier OS curves for AMLSG, TCGA, and TARGET data. (A) AMLSG ELN 2017 and ELN 2010 stratification. Cox regression on ELN 2017 revealed a significantly different HR using the Wald test statistic for all 3 risk groups (favorable vs intermediate: P = 3 × 10−12; HR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.4-1.9; favorable vs adverse: P < 2 × 10−16; HR, 3.2; 95% CI, 2.8-3.7; intermediate vs adverse: P < 2 × 10−16; HR, 2; 95% CI, 1.7-2.2). ELN 2010 was also able to stratify the cohort into risk groups (favorable vs intermediate-I: P = 2 × 10−14; HR, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.8-2.7; favorable vs intermediate-II: P = 3 × 10−7; HR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.5-2.4; favorable vs adverse: P < 2 × 10−16; HR, 4.2; 95% CI, 3.5-5.2; intermediate-I vs adverse: P = 2 × 10−14; HR, 2; 95% CI, 1.7-2.3; intermediate-II vs adverse: P = 2 × 10−12; HR, 2; 95% CI, 1.8-2.8); without difference between the intermediate-I and -II groups (P = .23). (B) In the TCGA cohort, ELN 2017 could stratify the favorable and intermediate risk groups from the adverse risk group (favorable vs adverse: P = .001; HR, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.3-3.3; intermediate vs adverse: P = .008; HR, 2; 95% CI, 1.2-3.2), but failed to stratify the favorable from the intermediate risk groups (P = .8). ELN 2010 successfully stratified the favorable from the intermediate-II and adverse risk groups (P = .03; HR, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.1-3.8; P = .002; HR, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.4-4.1), but not the favorable from the intermediate-I risk group (P = .2) or the intermediate-I and intermediate-II from the adverse risk group (P = .06; P = .6). (C) In the TARGET pediatric cohort, the ELN 2017 was again able to separate the 3 risk groups (favorable vs intermediate: P = 2 × 10−12; HR, 2.7; 95% CI, 2.1-3.6; favorable vs adverse: P = 3 × 10−16; HR, 3.8; 95% CI, 2.8-5.2; intermediate vs adverse: P = .008; HR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.1-1.8). ELN 2010 was also able to stratify the favorable from the intermediate and adverse groups (favorable vs intermediate-I: P = 3 × 10−10; HR, 2.9; 95% CI, 2.1-4.1; favorable vs intermediate-II: P = 7 × 10−11; HR, 2.6; 95% CI, 2-3.5; favorable vs adverse: P = 7 × 10−12; HR, 3.8; 95% CI, 2.6-5.7; and intermediate-II vs adverse: P = .02; HR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1-2), but not the intermediate-I from the adverse risk group (P = .14) or the intermediate-I from the intermediate-II risk group (P = .46).

ELN 2017 and ELN 2010 Kaplan-Meier OS curves for AMLSG, TCGA, and TARGET data. (A) AMLSG ELN 2017 and ELN 2010 stratification. Cox regression on ELN 2017 revealed a significantly different HR using the Wald test statistic for all 3 risk groups (favorable vs intermediate: P = 3 × 10−12; HR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.4-1.9; favorable vs adverse: P < 2 × 10−16; HR, 3.2; 95% CI, 2.8-3.7; intermediate vs adverse: P < 2 × 10−16; HR, 2; 95% CI, 1.7-2.2). ELN 2010 was also able to stratify the cohort into risk groups (favorable vs intermediate-I: P = 2 × 10−14; HR, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.8-2.7; favorable vs intermediate-II: P = 3 × 10−7; HR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.5-2.4; favorable vs adverse: P < 2 × 10−16; HR, 4.2; 95% CI, 3.5-5.2; intermediate-I vs adverse: P = 2 × 10−14; HR, 2; 95% CI, 1.7-2.3; intermediate-II vs adverse: P = 2 × 10−12; HR, 2; 95% CI, 1.8-2.8); without difference between the intermediate-I and -II groups (P = .23). (B) In the TCGA cohort, ELN 2017 could stratify the favorable and intermediate risk groups from the adverse risk group (favorable vs adverse: P = .001; HR, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.3-3.3; intermediate vs adverse: P = .008; HR, 2; 95% CI, 1.2-3.2), but failed to stratify the favorable from the intermediate risk groups (P = .8). ELN 2010 successfully stratified the favorable from the intermediate-II and adverse risk groups (P = .03; HR, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.1-3.8; P = .002; HR, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.4-4.1), but not the favorable from the intermediate-I risk group (P = .2) or the intermediate-I and intermediate-II from the adverse risk group (P = .06; P = .6). (C) In the TARGET pediatric cohort, the ELN 2017 was again able to separate the 3 risk groups (favorable vs intermediate: P = 2 × 10−12; HR, 2.7; 95% CI, 2.1-3.6; favorable vs adverse: P = 3 × 10−16; HR, 3.8; 95% CI, 2.8-5.2; intermediate vs adverse: P = .008; HR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.1-1.8). ELN 2010 was also able to stratify the favorable from the intermediate and adverse groups (favorable vs intermediate-I: P = 3 × 10−10; HR, 2.9; 95% CI, 2.1-4.1; favorable vs intermediate-II: P = 7 × 10−11; HR, 2.6; 95% CI, 2-3.5; favorable vs adverse: P = 7 × 10−12; HR, 3.8; 95% CI, 2.6-5.7; and intermediate-II vs adverse: P = .02; HR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1-2), but not the intermediate-I from the adverse risk group (P = .14) or the intermediate-I from the intermediate-II risk group (P = .46).

Close Modal
This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal