{"title":"新诊断急性髓性白血病的KMT2C/D突变:临床特征、遗传共现及预后意义","authors":"Wenting Wang, Miao Yang, Xue Zhang, Jiayuan Chen, Shaowei Qiu, Bingcheng Liu, Yingchang Mi, Jianxiang Wang, Hui Wei","doi":"10.1002/ctm2.70284","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>To the Editor:</p><p>Acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) is a diverse and complex category of malignant disease with poor outcomes. Despite advancements in prognostication and treatment strategies, the molecular landscape of AML remains complex and is not fully understood. Epigenetic factors are acknowledged as crucial in tumour development and progression.<span><sup>1</sup></span> The <i>KMT2</i> (histone-lysine N-methyltransferase 2) family encompasses six key proteins: <i>KMT2A/B</i>, <i>KMT2C/D</i>, <i>KMT2F</i> and <i>KMT2G</i>, which is most notably associated with AML.<span><sup>2</sup></span> <i>KMT2A</i> is associated with <i>KMT2A</i>-rearranged leukaemia.<span><sup>3</sup></span> <i>KMT2B</i> is identified as a hotspot for rearrangements.<span><sup>4</sup></span> <i>KMT2C/D</i> mutations occurred frequently in various malignancies.<span><sup>5</sup></span> However, the clinical characteristics of <i>KMT2C/D</i> mutations in AML remain poorly defined. We found that <i>KMT2C</i> and <i>KMT2D</i> mutations are relatively rare and mutually exclusive in newly diagnosed AML, with <i>KMT2C</i> mutations enriched in <i>CEBPA</i>-mutated and <i>KMT2D</i> in <i>NPM1</i>-mutated AML subtypes, respectively. In general, <i>KMT2C<sup>MUT</sup></i> and <i>KMT2C<sup>WT</sup></i>, as well as <i>KMT2D<sup>MUT</sup></i> and <i>KMT2D<sup>WT</sup></i> AML, exhibit distinct mutational spectrums, similar clinical characteristics and survival outcomes.</p><p>We reviewed 1935 AML patients who underwent next-generation sequencing (NGS) analyses between 2015 and 2024. Of these, 1050 were eligible for <i>KMT2C</i> analysis and 1777 for <i>KMT2D</i> analysis. The <i>KMT2C</i> mutation rate was 1.90% (20/1050), consistent with previous studies.<span><sup>6, 7</sup></span> The <i>KMT2D</i> mutation rate was 1.41% (25/1777), lower than that reported in a small-sample study.<span><sup>8</sup></span> No patient had concurrent <i>KMT2C</i> and <i>KMT2D</i> mutations. Characteristics of AML patients with and without <i>KMT2C/D</i> mutation are presented in Table 1. Clinical characteristics did not differ significantly between wild-type and <i>KMT2C/D</i>-mutated AML patients, except that <i>KMT2D<sup>WT</sup></i> patients had higher haemoglobin levels than <i>KMT2D<sup>MUT</sup></i> patients (<i>p </i>< .001). Among <i>KMT2C</i> mutated patients, nine (45%) were male and their median age was 43.9 years. For AML classification, 10 of 20 patients were classified as AML with <i>CEBPA</i> mutation. Patients with <i>KMT2D</i> mutations included 11 (44%) males, with a median age of 42.0, and 11 (44%) were recognised as AML with <i>NPM1</i> mutation. Patients with <i>KMT2C</i> and <i>KMT2D</i> mutations were enriched by AML with <i>CEBPA</i> and <i>NPM1</i> mutations, respectively. Additionally, most patients had normal karyotypes, including 50% of <i>KMT2C<sup>MUT</sup></i> patients and 72% of <i>KMT2D<sup>MUT</sup></i> patients.</p><p>We identified 22 mutation sites in the <i>KMT2C</i> gene (Figure 1A) and 30 in the <i>KMT2D</i> gene (Figure 1B). In all 95.5% of <i>KMT2C</i> mutations were nonsense and frameshift, consistent with the COSMIC database analysis by Rao et al.<span><sup>5</sup></span> The PHD domain was the most frequently mutated region in <i>KMT2C</i>, with 27.3% (6/22) of mutations located there, of which 83.3% (5/6) were nonsense. In contrast, <i>KMT2D</i> mutations were dispersed without clustering in specific exons or domains. We also analysed co-mutations in <i>KMT2C/D</i> mutant patients. A total of 110 (median five mutations per patient) and 128 (median five mutations per patient) mutations had been found in <i>KMT2C</i> and <i>KMT2D</i> mutated AML, respectively. All <i>KMT2C/D</i> mutations were accompanied by additional gene mutations. <i>CEBPA</i> (<i>n</i> = 10, 50.0%) was the most frequent co-mutation with <i>KMT2C</i>, followed by <i>NRAS</i> (<i>n</i> = 7, 35.0%), <i>GATA2</i> (<i>n</i> = 5, 25.0%), <i>FLT3</i> (<i>n</i> = 5, 25.0%). Garg et al. reported that <i>KMT2C</i> co-mutates with <i>FLT3</i>.<span><sup>9</sup></span> In addition, compared with <i>KMT2C<sup>WT</sup></i> AML, <i>KMT2C<sup>MUT</sup></i> AML had significantly higher frequencies of <i>CEBPA</i> (50.0% vs. 20.6%, <i>p</i> = .004), <i>GATA2</i> (25.0% vs. 6.1%, <i>p </i>= .007) and <i>BCOR</i> (20.0% vs. 4.9%, <i>p</i> = .016) mutations (Figure 1C). Besides, all <i>CEBPA</i> mutations were <i>CEBPA<sup>bZIP</sup></i> (Figure 1D). Correspondingly, <i>FLT3</i> (<i>n</i> = 13, 52.0%) was the most frequent co-occurred mutation in <i>KMT2D<sup>MUT</sup></i> AML, followed by <i>NPM1</i> (<i>n</i> = 11, 44.0%) and <i>IDH2</i> (<i>n</i> = 7, 28.0%). Compared with <i>KMT2D<sup>WT</sup></i> AML, <i>KMT2D<sup>MUT</sup></i> patients were more likely to co-occur with <i>FLT3</i> (52.0% vs. 28.1%, <i>p</i> = .016) and <i>NPM1</i> (44.0% vs. 19.2%, <i>p</i> = .004) mutations (Figure 1E,F).</p><p>Further, we compared the characteristics of different mutation statuses of <i>KMT2C/D</i> in the <i>CEBPA<sup>bZIP</sup></i> (Table S1) and <i>NPM1</i> (Table S2) subgroups, respectively. In both subgroups, clinical characteristics were similar between wild-type and <i>KMT2C/D</i>-mutated AML patients, except for the higher haemoglobin in <i>KMT2D<sup>WT</sup></i> patients (<i>p</i> = .035). In the <i>CEBPA<sup>bZIP</sup></i> AML cohort, <i>KMT2C<sup>MUT</sup></i> AML were more likely to have co-mutations of <i>NRAS</i> (50.0% vs. 21.1%, <i>p</i> = .05) than <i>KMT2C<sup>WT</sup></i>. In the <i>NPM1</i><sup>MUT</sup> subgroup, the prevalence of <i>IDH2</i> co-mutations was significantly higher in <i>KMT2D<sup>MUT</sup></i> AML compared with <i>KMT2D<sup>WT</sup></i> AML (63.6% vs. 18.7%, <i>p</i> = .002).</p><p>Finally, we examined whether <i>KMT2C/D</i> mutations influence the prognosis of AML. There was no difference in overall survival (OS) or event-free survival (EFS) between <i>KMT2C<sup>WT</sup></i> and <i>KMT2C<sup>MUT</sup></i> AML patients. The 1-year OS rates were 83.8% and 94.7% for <i>KMT2C<sup>WT</sup></i> and <i>KMT2C<sup>MUT</sup></i> groups (HR:. 69, 95% confidence interval [CI]:. 22–2.15, <i>p</i> = .52; Figure 2A), respectively. The 1-year EFS rate in <i>KMT2C<sup>WT</sup></i> and <i>KMT2C<sup>MUT</sup></i> groups were 50.5% and 63.8% (HR:. 64, 95% CI:. 32–1.28, <i>p</i> = .2; Figure 2B), respectively. Although no difference in OS was observed between <i>CEBPA<sup>bZIP</sup></i>/<i>KMT2C<sup>WT</sup></i>and <i>CEBPA<sup>bZIP</sup></i>/<i>KMT2C<sup>MUT</sup></i> patients (Figure 2C), the <i>CEBPA<sup>bZIP</sup></i>/<i>KMT2C<sup>MUT</sup></i> patients exhibited superior EFS, achieving 1-year EFS rate of 90.0% in contrast to 55.4% in the <i>CEBPA<sup>bZIP</sup></i>/<i>KMT2C<sup>WT</sup></i> patients (HR:. 15; 95% CI:. 02–1.06, <i>p</i> = .028; Figure 2D). Multivariate analysis also demonstrated that <i>KMT2C</i> mutation in <i>CEBPA<sup>bZIP</sup></i> patients was associated with better EFS (HR:. 102, 95% CI:. 013–.766, <i>p </i>= .026) but not OS (Table S3). <i>KMT2D<sup>MUT</sup></i> and <i>KMT2D<sup>WT</sup></i> groups exhibited similar outcomes with 1-year OS rates at 81.5% and 88.4% (HR:. 78, 95% CI:. 29–2.09, <i>p</i> = .62; Figure 2E), 1-year EFS rate at 49.5% and 49.0% (HR: 1.09, 95% CI:. 62–1.93, <i>p</i> = .76; Figure 2F), respectively. Moreover, for <i>NPM1<sup>MUT</sup></i> patients, <i>KMT2D</i> mutation did not affect EFS or OS, as shown by Kaplan–Meier survival analysis (Figure 2G,H) and multivariate analysis (Table S4). Additionally, we investigated the impact of <i>KMT2C/D</i> mutations on survival outcomes across different NCCN risk groups, yet found no significant effects in the favourable, intermediate or adverse risk groups (Figures S1 and S2). However, the effect of <i>KMT2C/D</i> on the prognosis of AML needs to be further explored and verified by more studies with larger samples.</p><p>HW and JW participated in concept design. MY, XZ, and WW were involved in data collection and analysis, drafting and revising the manuscript. JC, SQ, BL, and YM were responsible for interpreting the results. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript. </p><p>National Key Research and Development Program of China, Grant Number: 2023YFC2508900; National Natural Science Foundation of China, Grant Number: 82370183; CAMS Innovation Fund for Medical Sciences, Grant Number: 2023-I2M-2-007; Tian Jin Natural Science Foundation, Grant Number: 23JCZXJC00310; Haihe Laboratory of Cell Ecosystem Innovation Fund, Grant Number: 22HHXBSS00040; Beijing Xisike Clinical Oncology Research Foundation, Grant Number: Y-SYBLD2022ZD-0031</p><p>This research was approved by the ethical committee in the Institute of Hematology and Blood Diseases Hospital, and all procedures were in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration. Written informed consent was obtained from each participant.</p>","PeriodicalId":10189,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and Translational Medicine","volume":"15 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ctm2.70284","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"KMT2C/D mutations in newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukaemia: Clinical features, genetic co-occurrences and prognostic significance\",\"authors\":\"Wenting Wang, Miao Yang, Xue Zhang, Jiayuan Chen, Shaowei Qiu, Bingcheng Liu, Yingchang Mi, Jianxiang Wang, Hui Wei\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/ctm2.70284\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>To the Editor:</p><p>Acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) is a diverse and complex category of malignant disease with poor outcomes. Despite advancements in prognostication and treatment strategies, the molecular landscape of AML remains complex and is not fully understood. Epigenetic factors are acknowledged as crucial in tumour development and progression.<span><sup>1</sup></span> The <i>KMT2</i> (histone-lysine N-methyltransferase 2) family encompasses six key proteins: <i>KMT2A/B</i>, <i>KMT2C/D</i>, <i>KMT2F</i> and <i>KMT2G</i>, which is most notably associated with AML.<span><sup>2</sup></span> <i>KMT2A</i> is associated with <i>KMT2A</i>-rearranged leukaemia.<span><sup>3</sup></span> <i>KMT2B</i> is identified as a hotspot for rearrangements.<span><sup>4</sup></span> <i>KMT2C/D</i> mutations occurred frequently in various malignancies.<span><sup>5</sup></span> However, the clinical characteristics of <i>KMT2C/D</i> mutations in AML remain poorly defined. We found that <i>KMT2C</i> and <i>KMT2D</i> mutations are relatively rare and mutually exclusive in newly diagnosed AML, with <i>KMT2C</i> mutations enriched in <i>CEBPA</i>-mutated and <i>KMT2D</i> in <i>NPM1</i>-mutated AML subtypes, respectively. In general, <i>KMT2C<sup>MUT</sup></i> and <i>KMT2C<sup>WT</sup></i>, as well as <i>KMT2D<sup>MUT</sup></i> and <i>KMT2D<sup>WT</sup></i> AML, exhibit distinct mutational spectrums, similar clinical characteristics and survival outcomes.</p><p>We reviewed 1935 AML patients who underwent next-generation sequencing (NGS) analyses between 2015 and 2024. Of these, 1050 were eligible for <i>KMT2C</i> analysis and 1777 for <i>KMT2D</i> analysis. The <i>KMT2C</i> mutation rate was 1.90% (20/1050), consistent with previous studies.<span><sup>6, 7</sup></span> The <i>KMT2D</i> mutation rate was 1.41% (25/1777), lower than that reported in a small-sample study.<span><sup>8</sup></span> No patient had concurrent <i>KMT2C</i> and <i>KMT2D</i> mutations. Characteristics of AML patients with and without <i>KMT2C/D</i> mutation are presented in Table 1. Clinical characteristics did not differ significantly between wild-type and <i>KMT2C/D</i>-mutated AML patients, except that <i>KMT2D<sup>WT</sup></i> patients had higher haemoglobin levels than <i>KMT2D<sup>MUT</sup></i> patients (<i>p </i>< .001). Among <i>KMT2C</i> mutated patients, nine (45%) were male and their median age was 43.9 years. For AML classification, 10 of 20 patients were classified as AML with <i>CEBPA</i> mutation. Patients with <i>KMT2D</i> mutations included 11 (44%) males, with a median age of 42.0, and 11 (44%) were recognised as AML with <i>NPM1</i> mutation. Patients with <i>KMT2C</i> and <i>KMT2D</i> mutations were enriched by AML with <i>CEBPA</i> and <i>NPM1</i> mutations, respectively. Additionally, most patients had normal karyotypes, including 50% of <i>KMT2C<sup>MUT</sup></i> patients and 72% of <i>KMT2D<sup>MUT</sup></i> patients.</p><p>We identified 22 mutation sites in the <i>KMT2C</i> gene (Figure 1A) and 30 in the <i>KMT2D</i> gene (Figure 1B). In all 95.5% of <i>KMT2C</i> mutations were nonsense and frameshift, consistent with the COSMIC database analysis by Rao et al.<span><sup>5</sup></span> The PHD domain was the most frequently mutated region in <i>KMT2C</i>, with 27.3% (6/22) of mutations located there, of which 83.3% (5/6) were nonsense. In contrast, <i>KMT2D</i> mutations were dispersed without clustering in specific exons or domains. We also analysed co-mutations in <i>KMT2C/D</i> mutant patients. A total of 110 (median five mutations per patient) and 128 (median five mutations per patient) mutations had been found in <i>KMT2C</i> and <i>KMT2D</i> mutated AML, respectively. All <i>KMT2C/D</i> mutations were accompanied by additional gene mutations. <i>CEBPA</i> (<i>n</i> = 10, 50.0%) was the most frequent co-mutation with <i>KMT2C</i>, followed by <i>NRAS</i> (<i>n</i> = 7, 35.0%), <i>GATA2</i> (<i>n</i> = 5, 25.0%), <i>FLT3</i> (<i>n</i> = 5, 25.0%). Garg et al. reported that <i>KMT2C</i> co-mutates with <i>FLT3</i>.<span><sup>9</sup></span> In addition, compared with <i>KMT2C<sup>WT</sup></i> AML, <i>KMT2C<sup>MUT</sup></i> AML had significantly higher frequencies of <i>CEBPA</i> (50.0% vs. 20.6%, <i>p</i> = .004), <i>GATA2</i> (25.0% vs. 6.1%, <i>p </i>= .007) and <i>BCOR</i> (20.0% vs. 4.9%, <i>p</i> = .016) mutations (Figure 1C). Besides, all <i>CEBPA</i> mutations were <i>CEBPA<sup>bZIP</sup></i> (Figure 1D). Correspondingly, <i>FLT3</i> (<i>n</i> = 13, 52.0%) was the most frequent co-occurred mutation in <i>KMT2D<sup>MUT</sup></i> AML, followed by <i>NPM1</i> (<i>n</i> = 11, 44.0%) and <i>IDH2</i> (<i>n</i> = 7, 28.0%). Compared with <i>KMT2D<sup>WT</sup></i> AML, <i>KMT2D<sup>MUT</sup></i> patients were more likely to co-occur with <i>FLT3</i> (52.0% vs. 28.1%, <i>p</i> = .016) and <i>NPM1</i> (44.0% vs. 19.2%, <i>p</i> = .004) mutations (Figure 1E,F).</p><p>Further, we compared the characteristics of different mutation statuses of <i>KMT2C/D</i> in the <i>CEBPA<sup>bZIP</sup></i> (Table S1) and <i>NPM1</i> (Table S2) subgroups, respectively. In both subgroups, clinical characteristics were similar between wild-type and <i>KMT2C/D</i>-mutated AML patients, except for the higher haemoglobin in <i>KMT2D<sup>WT</sup></i> patients (<i>p</i> = .035). In the <i>CEBPA<sup>bZIP</sup></i> AML cohort, <i>KMT2C<sup>MUT</sup></i> AML were more likely to have co-mutations of <i>NRAS</i> (50.0% vs. 21.1%, <i>p</i> = .05) than <i>KMT2C<sup>WT</sup></i>. In the <i>NPM1</i><sup>MUT</sup> subgroup, the prevalence of <i>IDH2</i> co-mutations was significantly higher in <i>KMT2D<sup>MUT</sup></i> AML compared with <i>KMT2D<sup>WT</sup></i> AML (63.6% vs. 18.7%, <i>p</i> = .002).</p><p>Finally, we examined whether <i>KMT2C/D</i> mutations influence the prognosis of AML. There was no difference in overall survival (OS) or event-free survival (EFS) between <i>KMT2C<sup>WT</sup></i> and <i>KMT2C<sup>MUT</sup></i> AML patients. The 1-year OS rates were 83.8% and 94.7% for <i>KMT2C<sup>WT</sup></i> and <i>KMT2C<sup>MUT</sup></i> groups (HR:. 69, 95% confidence interval [CI]:. 22–2.15, <i>p</i> = .52; Figure 2A), respectively. The 1-year EFS rate in <i>KMT2C<sup>WT</sup></i> and <i>KMT2C<sup>MUT</sup></i> groups were 50.5% and 63.8% (HR:. 64, 95% CI:. 32–1.28, <i>p</i> = .2; Figure 2B), respectively. Although no difference in OS was observed between <i>CEBPA<sup>bZIP</sup></i>/<i>KMT2C<sup>WT</sup></i>and <i>CEBPA<sup>bZIP</sup></i>/<i>KMT2C<sup>MUT</sup></i> patients (Figure 2C), the <i>CEBPA<sup>bZIP</sup></i>/<i>KMT2C<sup>MUT</sup></i> patients exhibited superior EFS, achieving 1-year EFS rate of 90.0% in contrast to 55.4% in the <i>CEBPA<sup>bZIP</sup></i>/<i>KMT2C<sup>WT</sup></i> patients (HR:. 15; 95% CI:. 02–1.06, <i>p</i> = .028; Figure 2D). Multivariate analysis also demonstrated that <i>KMT2C</i> mutation in <i>CEBPA<sup>bZIP</sup></i> patients was associated with better EFS (HR:. 102, 95% CI:. 013–.766, <i>p </i>= .026) but not OS (Table S3). <i>KMT2D<sup>MUT</sup></i> and <i>KMT2D<sup>WT</sup></i> groups exhibited similar outcomes with 1-year OS rates at 81.5% and 88.4% (HR:. 78, 95% CI:. 29–2.09, <i>p</i> = .62; Figure 2E), 1-year EFS rate at 49.5% and 49.0% (HR: 1.09, 95% CI:. 62–1.93, <i>p</i> = .76; Figure 2F), respectively. Moreover, for <i>NPM1<sup>MUT</sup></i> patients, <i>KMT2D</i> mutation did not affect EFS or OS, as shown by Kaplan–Meier survival analysis (Figure 2G,H) and multivariate analysis (Table S4). Additionally, we investigated the impact of <i>KMT2C/D</i> mutations on survival outcomes across different NCCN risk groups, yet found no significant effects in the favourable, intermediate or adverse risk groups (Figures S1 and S2). However, the effect of <i>KMT2C/D</i> on the prognosis of AML needs to be further explored and verified by more studies with larger samples.</p><p>HW and JW participated in concept design. MY, XZ, and WW were involved in data collection and analysis, drafting and revising the manuscript. JC, SQ, BL, and YM were responsible for interpreting the results. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript. </p><p>National Key Research and Development Program of China, Grant Number: 2023YFC2508900; National Natural Science Foundation of China, Grant Number: 82370183; CAMS Innovation Fund for Medical Sciences, Grant Number: 2023-I2M-2-007; Tian Jin Natural Science Foundation, Grant Number: 23JCZXJC00310; Haihe Laboratory of Cell Ecosystem Innovation Fund, Grant Number: 22HHXBSS00040; Beijing Xisike Clinical Oncology Research Foundation, Grant Number: Y-SYBLD2022ZD-0031</p><p>This research was approved by the ethical committee in the Institute of Hematology and Blood Diseases Hospital, and all procedures were in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration. Written informed consent was obtained from each participant.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10189,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical and Translational Medicine\",\"volume\":\"15 4\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ctm2.70284\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical and Translational Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ctm2.70284\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical and Translational Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ctm2.70284","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
致编辑:急性髓性白血病(AML)是一种多样化和复杂的恶性疾病,预后不良。尽管在预后和治疗策略方面取得了进展,但AML的分子格局仍然很复杂,尚未完全了解。表观遗传因素在肿瘤的发生和发展中被认为是至关重要的KMT2(组蛋白赖氨酸n -甲基转移酶2)家族包含6个关键蛋白:KMT2A/B、KMT2C/D、KMT2F和KMT2G,与aml最显著相关。2 KMT2A与KMT2A重排白血病相关KMT2B被确定为重排热点KMT2C/D突变常见于各种恶性肿瘤然而,AML中KMT2C/D突变的临床特征仍然不明确。我们发现KMT2C和KMT2D突变在新诊断的AML中相对罕见且互斥,KMT2C突变分别在cebpa突变的AML亚型和npm1突变的AML亚型中富集。总的来说,KMT2CMUT和KMT2CWT,以及KMT2DMUT和KMT2DWT AML表现出不同的突变谱,相似的临床特征和生存结果。我们回顾了2015年至2024年间接受下一代测序(NGS)分析的1935例AML患者。其中1050例符合KMT2C分析,1777例符合KMT2D分析。KMT2C突变率为1.90%(20/1050),与前人研究一致。6、7 KMT2D突变率为1.41%(25/1777),低于小样本研究报道没有患者同时发生KMT2C和KMT2D突变。有无KMT2C/D突变的AML患者特征见表1。临床特征在野生型和KMT2C/ d突变AML患者之间没有显著差异,除了KMT2DWT患者的血红蛋白水平高于KMT2DMUT患者(p <;措施)。KMT2C突变患者中,9例(45%)为男性,中位年龄为43.9岁。在AML分型方面,20例患者中有10例为伴有CEBPA突变的AML。KMT2D突变患者包括11例(44%)男性,中位年龄为42.0岁,11例(44%)被认为是AML合并NPM1突变。具有KMT2C和KMT2D突变的患者分别在具有CEBPA和NPM1突变的AML中富集。此外,大多数患者的核型正常,包括50%的KMT2CMUT患者和72%的KMT2DMUT患者。我们在KMT2C基因中发现了22个突变位点(图1A),在KMT2D基因中发现了30个突变位点(图1B)。95.5%的KMT2C突变为无义移码突变,与Rao等人的COSMIC数据库分析结果一致。5 PHD结构域是KMT2C中最常发生突变的区域,有27.3%(6/22)的突变位于此,其中83.3%(5/6)为无义突变。相反,KMT2D突变是分散的,没有聚集在特定的外显子或结构域。我们还分析了KMT2C/D突变患者的共突变。在KMT2C和KMT2D突变的AML中分别发现了110个(平均每位患者5个突变)和128个(平均每位患者5个突变)突变。所有KMT2C/D突变都伴有额外的基因突变。与KMT2C共突变最多的是CEBPA (n = 10, 50.0%),其次是NRAS (n = 7, 35.0%)、GATA2 (n = 5, 25.0%)、FLT3 (n = 5, 25.0%)。Garg等人报道KMT2C与FLT3.9共突变。此外,与KMT2CWT AML相比,KMT2CMUT AML的CEBPA(50.0%对20.6%,p = 0.004)、GATA2(25.0%对6.1%,p = 0.007)和BCOR(20.0%对4.9%,p = 0.016)突变的频率明显更高(图1C)。此外,所有CEBPA突变均为CEBPAbZIP(图1D)。相应的,在KMT2DMUT AML中,FLT3 (n = 13, 52.0%)是最常见的共发生突变,其次是NPM1 (n = 11, 44.0%)和IDH2 (n = 7, 28.0%)。与KMT2DWT AML相比,KMT2DMUT患者更容易同时发生FLT3 (52.0% vs. 28.1%, p = 0.016)和NPM1 (44.0% vs. 19.2%, p = 0.004)突变(图1E,F)。此外,我们分别比较了CEBPAbZIP亚组(表S1)和NPM1亚组(表S2)中KMT2C/D不同突变状态的特征。在这两个亚组中,除了KMT2DWT患者的血红蛋白较高外,野生型和KMT2C/ d突变AML患者的临床特征相似(p = 0.035)。在CEBPAbZIP AML队列中,KMT2CMUT AML比KMT2CWT更容易发生NRAS共突变(50.0% vs. 21.1%, p = 0.05)。在NPM1MUT亚组中,与KMT2DWT AML相比,KMT2DMUT AML中IDH2共突变的发生率显著高于KMT2DMUT AML(63.6%对18.7%,p = 0.002)。最后,我们研究了KMT2C/D突变是否影响AML的预后。KMT2CWT和KMT2CMUT AML患者的总生存期(OS)或无事件生存期(EFS)没有差异。KMT2CWT组和KMT2CMUT组1年OS率分别为83.8%和94.7% (HR:。69、95%置信区间[CI]:。22-2.15, p = .52;图2A)。KMT2CWT组和KMT2CMUT组的1年EFS发生率分别为50.5%和63%。 8%(人力资源:。64, 95% ci:。32 ~ 1.28, p = .2;图2B)。虽然CEBPAbZIP/KMT2CWT和CEBPAbZIP/KMT2CMUT患者的OS没有差异(图2C),但CEBPAbZIP/KMT2CMUT患者表现出更好的EFS,达到90.0%的1年EFS率,而CEBPAbZIP/KMT2CWT患者为55.4% (HR:。15;置信区间:95%。02-1.06, p = 0.028;图2 d)。多变量分析还表明,CEBPAbZIP患者的KMT2C突变与更好的EFS (HR:)相关。102,95% ci:。013 -。766, p = .026),但OS没有(表S3)。KMT2DMUT组和KMT2DWT组的1年OS率相似,分别为81.5%和88.4% (HR:)。78, 95% ci:。29-2.09, p = .62;图2E), 1年EFS发生率分别为49.5%和49.0% (HR: 1.09, 95% CI:。62-1.93, p = 0.76;图2F)。此外,Kaplan-Meier生存分析(图2G,H)和多变量分析(表S4)显示,对于NPM1MUT患者,KMT2D突变不影响EFS或OS。此外,我们调查了KMT2C/D突变对不同NCCN风险组生存结果的影响,但在有利、中等或不良风险组中没有发现显著影响(图S1和S2)。然而,KMT2C/D对AML预后的影响还需要更多更大样本的研究来进一步探索和验证。HW和JW参与了概念设计。MY, XZ, WW参与了数据的收集和分析,草稿的起草和修改。JC、SQ、BL、YM负责结果解释。所有作者都阅读并批准了最终稿件。国家重点研发计划项目,资助号:2023YFC2508900;国家自然科学基金项目,资助号:82370183;中国科学院医学科学创新基金,批准号:2023-I2M-2-007;天津市自然科学基金项目资助号:23JCZXJC00310;海河细胞生态创新基金实验室,资助号:22HHXBSS00040;北京西思科临床肿瘤研究基金,资助号:y - sybld2022zd -0031本研究经血液学血液病医院研究所伦理委员会批准,所有程序按照赫尔辛基宣言执行。每位参与者都获得了书面知情同意书。
KMT2C/D mutations in newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukaemia: Clinical features, genetic co-occurrences and prognostic significance
To the Editor:
Acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) is a diverse and complex category of malignant disease with poor outcomes. Despite advancements in prognostication and treatment strategies, the molecular landscape of AML remains complex and is not fully understood. Epigenetic factors are acknowledged as crucial in tumour development and progression.1 The KMT2 (histone-lysine N-methyltransferase 2) family encompasses six key proteins: KMT2A/B, KMT2C/D, KMT2F and KMT2G, which is most notably associated with AML.2KMT2A is associated with KMT2A-rearranged leukaemia.3KMT2B is identified as a hotspot for rearrangements.4KMT2C/D mutations occurred frequently in various malignancies.5 However, the clinical characteristics of KMT2C/D mutations in AML remain poorly defined. We found that KMT2C and KMT2D mutations are relatively rare and mutually exclusive in newly diagnosed AML, with KMT2C mutations enriched in CEBPA-mutated and KMT2D in NPM1-mutated AML subtypes, respectively. In general, KMT2CMUT and KMT2CWT, as well as KMT2DMUT and KMT2DWT AML, exhibit distinct mutational spectrums, similar clinical characteristics and survival outcomes.
We reviewed 1935 AML patients who underwent next-generation sequencing (NGS) analyses between 2015 and 2024. Of these, 1050 were eligible for KMT2C analysis and 1777 for KMT2D analysis. The KMT2C mutation rate was 1.90% (20/1050), consistent with previous studies.6, 7 The KMT2D mutation rate was 1.41% (25/1777), lower than that reported in a small-sample study.8 No patient had concurrent KMT2C and KMT2D mutations. Characteristics of AML patients with and without KMT2C/D mutation are presented in Table 1. Clinical characteristics did not differ significantly between wild-type and KMT2C/D-mutated AML patients, except that KMT2DWT patients had higher haemoglobin levels than KMT2DMUT patients (p < .001). Among KMT2C mutated patients, nine (45%) were male and their median age was 43.9 years. For AML classification, 10 of 20 patients were classified as AML with CEBPA mutation. Patients with KMT2D mutations included 11 (44%) males, with a median age of 42.0, and 11 (44%) were recognised as AML with NPM1 mutation. Patients with KMT2C and KMT2D mutations were enriched by AML with CEBPA and NPM1 mutations, respectively. Additionally, most patients had normal karyotypes, including 50% of KMT2CMUT patients and 72% of KMT2DMUT patients.
We identified 22 mutation sites in the KMT2C gene (Figure 1A) and 30 in the KMT2D gene (Figure 1B). In all 95.5% of KMT2C mutations were nonsense and frameshift, consistent with the COSMIC database analysis by Rao et al.5 The PHD domain was the most frequently mutated region in KMT2C, with 27.3% (6/22) of mutations located there, of which 83.3% (5/6) were nonsense. In contrast, KMT2D mutations were dispersed without clustering in specific exons or domains. We also analysed co-mutations in KMT2C/D mutant patients. A total of 110 (median five mutations per patient) and 128 (median five mutations per patient) mutations had been found in KMT2C and KMT2D mutated AML, respectively. All KMT2C/D mutations were accompanied by additional gene mutations. CEBPA (n = 10, 50.0%) was the most frequent co-mutation with KMT2C, followed by NRAS (n = 7, 35.0%), GATA2 (n = 5, 25.0%), FLT3 (n = 5, 25.0%). Garg et al. reported that KMT2C co-mutates with FLT3.9 In addition, compared with KMT2CWT AML, KMT2CMUT AML had significantly higher frequencies of CEBPA (50.0% vs. 20.6%, p = .004), GATA2 (25.0% vs. 6.1%, p = .007) and BCOR (20.0% vs. 4.9%, p = .016) mutations (Figure 1C). Besides, all CEBPA mutations were CEBPAbZIP (Figure 1D). Correspondingly, FLT3 (n = 13, 52.0%) was the most frequent co-occurred mutation in KMT2DMUT AML, followed by NPM1 (n = 11, 44.0%) and IDH2 (n = 7, 28.0%). Compared with KMT2DWT AML, KMT2DMUT patients were more likely to co-occur with FLT3 (52.0% vs. 28.1%, p = .016) and NPM1 (44.0% vs. 19.2%, p = .004) mutations (Figure 1E,F).
Further, we compared the characteristics of different mutation statuses of KMT2C/D in the CEBPAbZIP (Table S1) and NPM1 (Table S2) subgroups, respectively. In both subgroups, clinical characteristics were similar between wild-type and KMT2C/D-mutated AML patients, except for the higher haemoglobin in KMT2DWT patients (p = .035). In the CEBPAbZIP AML cohort, KMT2CMUT AML were more likely to have co-mutations of NRAS (50.0% vs. 21.1%, p = .05) than KMT2CWT. In the NPM1MUT subgroup, the prevalence of IDH2 co-mutations was significantly higher in KMT2DMUT AML compared with KMT2DWT AML (63.6% vs. 18.7%, p = .002).
Finally, we examined whether KMT2C/D mutations influence the prognosis of AML. There was no difference in overall survival (OS) or event-free survival (EFS) between KMT2CWT and KMT2CMUT AML patients. The 1-year OS rates were 83.8% and 94.7% for KMT2CWT and KMT2CMUT groups (HR:. 69, 95% confidence interval [CI]:. 22–2.15, p = .52; Figure 2A), respectively. The 1-year EFS rate in KMT2CWT and KMT2CMUT groups were 50.5% and 63.8% (HR:. 64, 95% CI:. 32–1.28, p = .2; Figure 2B), respectively. Although no difference in OS was observed between CEBPAbZIP/KMT2CWTand CEBPAbZIP/KMT2CMUT patients (Figure 2C), the CEBPAbZIP/KMT2CMUT patients exhibited superior EFS, achieving 1-year EFS rate of 90.0% in contrast to 55.4% in the CEBPAbZIP/KMT2CWT patients (HR:. 15; 95% CI:. 02–1.06, p = .028; Figure 2D). Multivariate analysis also demonstrated that KMT2C mutation in CEBPAbZIP patients was associated with better EFS (HR:. 102, 95% CI:. 013–.766, p = .026) but not OS (Table S3). KMT2DMUT and KMT2DWT groups exhibited similar outcomes with 1-year OS rates at 81.5% and 88.4% (HR:. 78, 95% CI:. 29–2.09, p = .62; Figure 2E), 1-year EFS rate at 49.5% and 49.0% (HR: 1.09, 95% CI:. 62–1.93, p = .76; Figure 2F), respectively. Moreover, for NPM1MUT patients, KMT2D mutation did not affect EFS or OS, as shown by Kaplan–Meier survival analysis (Figure 2G,H) and multivariate analysis (Table S4). Additionally, we investigated the impact of KMT2C/D mutations on survival outcomes across different NCCN risk groups, yet found no significant effects in the favourable, intermediate or adverse risk groups (Figures S1 and S2). However, the effect of KMT2C/D on the prognosis of AML needs to be further explored and verified by more studies with larger samples.
HW and JW participated in concept design. MY, XZ, and WW were involved in data collection and analysis, drafting and revising the manuscript. JC, SQ, BL, and YM were responsible for interpreting the results. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.
National Key Research and Development Program of China, Grant Number: 2023YFC2508900; National Natural Science Foundation of China, Grant Number: 82370183; CAMS Innovation Fund for Medical Sciences, Grant Number: 2023-I2M-2-007; Tian Jin Natural Science Foundation, Grant Number: 23JCZXJC00310; Haihe Laboratory of Cell Ecosystem Innovation Fund, Grant Number: 22HHXBSS00040; Beijing Xisike Clinical Oncology Research Foundation, Grant Number: Y-SYBLD2022ZD-0031
This research was approved by the ethical committee in the Institute of Hematology and Blood Diseases Hospital, and all procedures were in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration. Written informed consent was obtained from each participant.
期刊介绍:
Clinical and Translational Medicine (CTM) is an international, peer-reviewed, open-access journal dedicated to accelerating the translation of preclinical research into clinical applications and fostering communication between basic and clinical scientists. It highlights the clinical potential and application of various fields including biotechnologies, biomaterials, bioengineering, biomarkers, molecular medicine, omics science, bioinformatics, immunology, molecular imaging, drug discovery, regulation, and health policy. With a focus on the bench-to-bedside approach, CTM prioritizes studies and clinical observations that generate hypotheses relevant to patients and diseases, guiding investigations in cellular and molecular medicine. The journal encourages submissions from clinicians, researchers, policymakers, and industry professionals.