OS and risk of AML evolution according to the CPSS-defined risk categories in the training and validation cohorts
| Risk category . | OS . | Risk of AML evolution . | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No. of patients (%) . | Median (mo) . | Proportion alive at 5 y (%) . | Log-rank (P value) . | Time to 25% probability (mo) . | Cumulative probability of AML evolution (%) . | Log-rank (P value) . | ||
| At 2 y . | At 5 y . | |||||||
| Training cohort | <.001 | <.001 | ||||||
| Low | 217 (41) | 72 | 55 | 95 | 7 | 13 | ||
| Intermediate-1 | 155 (29) | 31 | 25 | 40 | 14 | 29 | ||
| Intermediate-2 | 141 (26) | 13 | 10 | 11 | 37 | 60 | ||
| High | 19 (4) | 5 | 0 | 4 | 73 | 73 | ||
| Pairwise comparisons | Low vs intermediate-1, P < .001; Low vs intermediate-2, P < .001; Low vs high, P < .001; Intermediate-1 vs intermediate-2, P < .001; Intermediate-1 vs high, P < .001; Intermediate-2 vs high, P < .001 | Low vs intermediate-1, P = .023; Low vs intermediate-2, P < .001; Low vs high, P < .001; Intermediate-1 vs intermediate-2, P < .001; Intermediate-1 vs high, P < .001; Intermediate-2 vs high, P = .015 | ||||||
| Validation cohort | <.001 | <.001 | ||||||
| Low | 60 (26) | 61 | 51 | 59 | 8 | 24 | ||
| Intermediate-1 | 71 (31) | 31 | 29 | 24 | 25 | 41 | ||
| Intermediate-2 | 90 (39) | 15 | 11 | 13 | 49 | 52 | ||
| High | 10 (4) | 9 | 0 | 4 | 100 | 100 | ||
| Pairwise comparisons | Low vs intermediate-1, P = .028; low vs intermediate-2, P < .001; low vs high, P < .001; intermediate-1 vs intermediate-2, P < .001; intermediate-1 vs high, P < .001; intermediate-2 vs high, P = .007 | Low vs intermediate-1, P = .034; low vs intermediate-2, P < .001; low vs high, P < .001; intermediate-1 vs intermediate-2, P = .041; intermediate-1 vs high, P < .001; intermediate-2 vs high, P = .021 | ||||||
| Risk category . | OS . | Risk of AML evolution . | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No. of patients (%) . | Median (mo) . | Proportion alive at 5 y (%) . | Log-rank (P value) . | Time to 25% probability (mo) . | Cumulative probability of AML evolution (%) . | Log-rank (P value) . | ||
| At 2 y . | At 5 y . | |||||||
| Training cohort | <.001 | <.001 | ||||||
| Low | 217 (41) | 72 | 55 | 95 | 7 | 13 | ||
| Intermediate-1 | 155 (29) | 31 | 25 | 40 | 14 | 29 | ||
| Intermediate-2 | 141 (26) | 13 | 10 | 11 | 37 | 60 | ||
| High | 19 (4) | 5 | 0 | 4 | 73 | 73 | ||
| Pairwise comparisons | Low vs intermediate-1, P < .001; Low vs intermediate-2, P < .001; Low vs high, P < .001; Intermediate-1 vs intermediate-2, P < .001; Intermediate-1 vs high, P < .001; Intermediate-2 vs high, P < .001 | Low vs intermediate-1, P = .023; Low vs intermediate-2, P < .001; Low vs high, P < .001; Intermediate-1 vs intermediate-2, P < .001; Intermediate-1 vs high, P < .001; Intermediate-2 vs high, P = .015 | ||||||
| Validation cohort | <.001 | <.001 | ||||||
| Low | 60 (26) | 61 | 51 | 59 | 8 | 24 | ||
| Intermediate-1 | 71 (31) | 31 | 29 | 24 | 25 | 41 | ||
| Intermediate-2 | 90 (39) | 15 | 11 | 13 | 49 | 52 | ||
| High | 10 (4) | 9 | 0 | 4 | 100 | 100 | ||
| Pairwise comparisons | Low vs intermediate-1, P = .028; low vs intermediate-2, P < .001; low vs high, P < .001; intermediate-1 vs intermediate-2, P < .001; intermediate-1 vs high, P < .001; intermediate-2 vs high, P = .007 | Low vs intermediate-1, P = .034; low vs intermediate-2, P < .001; low vs high, P < .001; intermediate-1 vs intermediate-2, P = .041; intermediate-1 vs high, P < .001; intermediate-2 vs high, P = .021 | ||||||