Table 6

Results of multivariate analysis for OS, EFS, and RFS

Outcome/variableHR (95% CI)P
OS   
    Other karyotype 2.83 (1.68-4.77) < .001 
    FLT3/ITD 1.89 (1.07-3.34) .03 
    Favorable karyotype 0.39 (0.15-0.96) .04 
    WT1 1.79 (1.02-3.14) .04 
EFS   
    Other karyotype* 2.33 (1.49-3.64) < .001 
    WT1 2.05 (1.24-3.38) .005 
    FLT3/ITD 1.82 (1.14-2.92) .01 
    Favorable karyotype 0.74 (0.41-1.33) .31 
FS   
    Other karyotype* 2.44 (1.48-4.02) < .001 
    WT1 2.44 (1.42-4.17) .001 
    FLT3/ITD 1.99 (1.19-3.34) .009 
    Favorable karyotype 0.84 (0.44-1.58) .58 
Outcome/variableHR (95% CI)P
OS   
    Other karyotype 2.83 (1.68-4.77) < .001 
    FLT3/ITD 1.89 (1.07-3.34) .03 
    Favorable karyotype 0.39 (0.15-0.96) .04 
    WT1 1.79 (1.02-3.14) .04 
EFS   
    Other karyotype* 2.33 (1.49-3.64) < .001 
    WT1 2.05 (1.24-3.38) .005 
    FLT3/ITD 1.82 (1.14-2.92) .01 
    Favorable karyotype 0.74 (0.41-1.33) .31 
FS   
    Other karyotype* 2.44 (1.48-4.02) < .001 
    WT1 2.44 (1.42-4.17) .001 
    FLT3/ITD 1.99 (1.19-3.34) .009 
    Favorable karyotype 0.84 (0.44-1.58) .58 

WT1 mutations were tested in a Cox regression model with other well-known risk factors in childhood AML including favorable cytogenetics t(8;21), inv16, other abnormal karyotypes, and FLT3/ITD. When including age > 10 years, WBC ≥ 50 × 109/L, and SCT as time-dependent covariable, the estimates for WT1 mutations were similar, and the P values for these 3 parameters were all > .10.

*

Other karyotypes indicates all other cytogenetic aberrations than the well-known childhood AML subgroups, that is, normal karyotype and the favorable karyotypes inv(16) and t(8;21).

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal