AML with CEBPA mutations: A comparison of ICC and WHO-HAEM5 criteria in patients with 20% or more blasts

Abstract

AML with CEBPA mutation and AML with in-frame bZIP CEBPA mutations define favorable-risk disease entities in the proposed 5th edition of the World Health Organization Classification (WHO-HAEM5) and the International Consensus Classification (ICC), respectively. However, the impact of these new classifications on clinical practice remains unclear. We sought to assess the differences between the ICC and WHO-HAEM5 for AML with CEBPA mutation. 741 AML patients were retrospectively analyzed. Cox proportional-hazard regression was used to identify factors predictive of outcome. A validation cohort from the UK-NCRI clinical trials was used to confirm our findings. 81 (11%) AML patients had CEBPA mutations. 39 (48%) patients met WHO-HAEM5 criteria for AML with CEBPA mutation, among which 30 (77%) had biallelic CEBPA mutations and 9 (23%) had a single bZIP mutation. Among the 39 patients who met WHO-HAEM5 criteria, 25 (64%) also met ICC criteria. Compared to patients only meeting WHO-HAEM5 criteria, patients with in-frame bZIP CEBPA mutations (ie. meeting both WHO-HAEM5 and ICC criteria) were younger, had higher bone marrow blast percentages and CEBPA mutation burden, infrequently harboured 2022 ELN high-risk genetic features and co-mutations in other genes, and had superior outcomes. The associations in clinicopathological features and outcomes between the CEBPA-mutated groups were validated in the UK-NCRI cohort. Our study indicates that in-frame bZIP CEBPA mutations are the critical molecular aberrations associated with favorable outcomes in AML patients treated with curative intent chemotherapy. Compared to WHO-HAEM5, the ICC identifies a more homogenous group of CEBPA-mutated AML patients with favorable outcomes.

Keywords: AML; CEBPA; ICC; Risk classification; WHO-HAEM5.