Introduction
AML patients with KMT2A‐MLLT3 and other 11q23 abnormalities belong to the intermediate and high‐risk level groups, respectively. Whether the poor prognostic value of Ecotropic Viral Integration site‐1 (EVI1) overexpression suits either the subtypes of KMT2A‐MLLT3 or Non‐KMT2A‐MLLT3 AML patients (intermediate and high risk group) needs to be further investigated.
Methods
We retrospectively analyzed the clinical characteristics of 166 KMT2A‐r and KMT2A‐PTD AML patients.
Results
For the Non‐KMT2A‐MLLT3 group, patients in the EVI1‐high subgroup had shorter OS and DFS and higher CIR than those in the EVI1‐low subgroup (p = .027, p = .018, and p = .020, respectively). Additionally, both KMT2A‐MLLT3 and Non‐KMT2A‐MLLT3 patients who received chemotherapy alone had poorer prognosis than patients who also received allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (allo‐HSCT) regardless of their EVI1 expression level (all p < .001). For transplanted patients with KMT2A‐MLLT3 or Non‐KMT2A‐MLLT3 rearrangement, the EVI1‐high subgroup had worse prognosis than the EVI1‐low subgroup (all p < .05). The 2‐year CIR of the KMT2A‐MLLT3 and Non‐KMT2A‐MLLT3 groups with high EVI1 expression was high (52% and 49.6%, respectively). However, for patients with low EVI1 expression, the 2‐year CIR of transplanted patients with KMT2A‐MLLT3 and Non‐KMT2A‐MLLT3 was relatively low.
Conclusions
Our study showed that for the Non‐KMT2A‐MLLT3 group, the EVI1‐high group had shorter OS and DFS than the EVI1‐low group. High EVI1 expression showed an adverse effect in AML with KMT2A rearrangement in different risk stratification subtypes. For the EVI1‐high patients with non‐KMT2A‐MLLT3 rearrangement, other novel regimens towards relapse should be taken into consideration.