Review ArticleReview

Molecular landscape in acute myeloid leukemia: where do we stand in 2016

Karam Al-Issa and Aziz Nazha
Cancer Biology & Medicine December 2016, 13 (4) 474-482; DOI: https://doi.org/10.20892/j.issn.2095-3941.2016.0061

Abstract

Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is a clonal disorder characterized by the accumulation of complex genomic alterations that define the disease pathophysiology and overall outcome. Recent advances in sequencing technologies have described the molecular landscape of AML and identified several somatic alterations that impact overall survival. Despite all these advancement, several challenges remain in translating this information into effective therapy. Herein we will review the molecular landscape of AML and discuss the impact of the most common somatic mutations on disease biology and outcome.

keywords

Introduction

Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is a heterogeneous disorder characterized by the accumulation of complex genomic alterations that contribute to disease biology and prognosis1. Traditionally, certain cytogenetic abnormalities such as PML-RAR, t(8; 21), and inversion 16 have been described as a disease defining lesions; however, approximately 50% of AML patients have normal karyotype and their outcome is heterogeneous2. Further, some genomic abnormalities that have been described in AML such as –7/del 7q and –5/del5q have also been described in other myeloid malignancies such as myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) and myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN) and MDS/MPN.

After the completion of the human genome project, several recurrent somatic mutations have been identified as important features in defining the molecular landscape of AML1. Some of these mutations such as FLT-3 have an impact on disease pathophysiology, prognosis, and treatment strategy. Identifying these mutations also opened the door for the development of novel targeted therapies that specifically target these lesions. Despite all the advances in sequencing techniques and bioinformatics analyses, several challenges remain in translating this knowledge into clinical practice. Targeting mutations such as FLT3 remained an area with active investigations and variable success while targeting other common mutations such as NPM1, DNMT3A, and TET2 remains challenging.

In this review, we will discuss the cytogenetic and genomic landscape of AML with main focus on the common molecular abnormalities and their impact on disease biology and prognosis.

Cytogenetic characterization of AML

Genetic abnormalities that are derived from balanced translocation or inversions have been described as an important step in AML pathogenesis in a subset of patients2. These balanced chromosomal rearrangements can result in the production of fusion genes that encodes hematopoietic transcription factors such as RARA, RUNX1, and CBFb subunits of the core binding factor (CBF) complex3. The World Health Organization (WHO) classifications recognized these balanced chromosomal abnormalities as separate entities that are sufficient to diagnose AML without evidence of bone marrow blasts percentage ≥ 20%4.

These abnormalities include: AML with t(8;21)(q22;q22); RUNX1-RUNX1T1, AML with inv (16)(p13.1q22) or t(16;16)(p13.1;q22); CBFB-MYH11, AML with t(15;17)(q22;q12); PML-RARA, AML with t(9;11)(p22;q23); MLLT3-MLL, AML with t(6;9)(p23;q34); DEK-NUP214, AML with inv(3)(q21q26.2) or t(3;3)(q21;q26.2); RPN1-EVI1, and AML (megakaryoblastic) with t(1;22)(p13;q13); RBM15-MKL14. A recent revision of WHO classification in 2016 has recognized new provisional category of AML with BCR-ABL15. Prior studies have shown that Philadelphia chromosome positive AML is a distinct entity that is different from chronic myeloid leukemia in blast crisis (CML-BC). Patients with BCR-ABL1 AML are less likely to have splenomegaly or peripheral basophiia and usually have lower bone marrow cellularity and myeloid/erythroid ratios compared to CML-BC6,7. However, the median overall survival(OS) of patients with BCR-ABL1 AML is similar to other types of AML. Interestingly some patients with these abnormalities may response to treatment with tyrosine kinase inhibitors such as imatinib but their responses were of short duration6.

Another addition to 2016 WHO criteria is the recognition of the association between AML with inv(3)(q21.3q26.2) or t(3;3)(q21.3;q26.2) and GATA2/MECOM mutations. As previously known, AML with inv(3)/t(3;3) is associated with aberrant expression of the stem-cell regulator EVI1. Applying functional genomics and genome engineering on AML samples that harbored inv(3)/t(3;3) revealed that 3q rearrangements role in repositioning of a distal GATA2 enhancer to ectopically activate EVI1 and simultaneously confer GATA2 functional haploinsufficiency. Genomic excision of the ectopic enhancer restored EVI1 silencing and led to growth inhibition and differentiation of AML cells, suggesting that structural rearrangements involving the chromosomal repositioning of a single enhancer can lead to AML development8,9.

Although cytogenetic analysis can aid diagnosis and provide powerful prognostic tool to risk stratify patients with AML, approximately 50% of patients with de novo AML have normal karyotype2. This sub-group compromises a heterogeneous group of patients with variable outcomes2. Further, a significant variation in outcome is also found among patients with the same chromosomal abnormality, suggesting that cytogenetic analysis alone is suboptimal in risk stratifying patients with AML.

In the past decade, several genomic sequencing technologies including next-generation targeted deep sequencing (NGS), whole exome sequencing (WES), whole genome sequencing (WGS), and others have identified several genomic mutations that play an integral role in AML pathogenesis and prognosis3. These mutations have been identified in several important cellular pathways including: signaling pathways, Fms related tyrosine kinase 3 (FLT3), nucleolar phosphoprotein B23 (NPM1), CCAAT/enhancer binding protein alpha (CEBPα), runt-related transcription factor 1 (RUNX1), and others3; DNA methylation: DNA (Cytosine-5-)-methyltransferase 3 alpha (DNMT3A), tet methylcytosine dioxygenase 2 (TET2), isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 (IDH1), isocitrate dehydrogenase 2 (IDH2), and additional sex combs like 1 (ASXL1); tumor suppressor genes: tumor protein P53 (TP53), and wilms tumor1 (WT1); splicing machinery: serine/arginine-Rich splicing factor 2 (SRSF2), splicing factor 3b subunit 1 (SF3B1), U2 small nuclear RNA auxiliary factor 1 (U2AF1), and zinc finger CCCH-type, RNA binding motif and serine/arginine rich 2 (ZRSR2), and cohesin: cohesin complex component(RAD21), structural maintenance of chromosomes 1A (SMC1A), structural maintenance of chromosomes 3 (SMC3), stromal antigen 1-2(STAG1/2), and others1 (Table 1). It should be noted however that some of these mutations such as TET2, DNMT3A, and ASXL1 have also been described in elderly individuals who do not have evidence of myeloid malignancies and the presence of these mutations increases with age and is associated with worse OS and increased risk of cardiovascular events10–12.

View this table:
1

Prevalence, function, and prognosis of mutations detected in AML

Further, recent evidence suggests that genomic heterogeneity in AML is also associated with complex epigenetic heterogeneity that varies between diagnosis and disease progression13. Based on genomic and epigenomic sequencing data, AML can be divided into a subset with high epiallelic and low somatic mutation burden at diagnosis, a subset with high somatic mutation and lower epiallele burdens, and a subset with a mixed profile, suggesting distinct models of tumor heterogeneity and that add to the complexity of the genomic landscape of AML13.

Mutations in signaling pathways

FLT3

FLT3 is a receptor tyrosine kinase that is commonly mutated in AML. Mutations in FLT3 receptor can lead to constitutive activation that in turn can lead to decrease in apoptosis and increase in leukemia proliferation and survival14. Mutations in the juxtamembrane domain of the FLT3 (FLT3-ITD) receptor have been described in 25%–30% of patients with AML and point mutation of the tyrosine kinase domain (TKD) as been described in 5% of patients14. Although both types of mutations affect the receptor, their impact on outcome is different. In patients with normal karyotype, FLT3-ITD is associated with poor outcome while the outcome of FLT3-TKD mutations is controversial15–18. More importantly, the variate allelic frequency (VAF) of the mutation also impact OS. In a study of 354 young adults with FLT3-ITD mutations, a VAF > 50% was associated with worse OS compared to VAF of 25%–50%19. Moreover, approximately, 14%–25% of FLT3-ITD positive patients will have two or more mutations in FLT3 gene. In these cases the mutant to wild type ratio of the most prevalent mutation should be used to define the VAF18–20.

The prognostic impact of FLT3-TKD mutations remains controversial. This is in part due to the low frequency of this mutation and the small sample size of the studies that explored its prognostic impact18,19,21,22.

In AML patients with positive FLT3-ITD and normal karyotype, allogeneic transplant is usually recommended; however, the risk of replace remains high. Targeting FLT3-ITD mutations with FLT3 inhibitors have had limited success23. The reasons suggested for this limited success might be related to coexistence or development of FLT3-TKD mutations, activation of downstream signaling molecules, up-regulation of FLT3, or activation of other pathways23. Nevertheless, in a recent phase 3 multicenter, international, clinical trial for newly diagnosed AML with mutated FLT3-ITD, the addition of midostaurin (a FLT3 inhibitor) to standard induction and consolidation chemotherapy improved OS by 23% compared to those who received standard therapy alone. Several selective FLT3 inhibitors are currently in development with variable clinical effects.

NPM1

NPM1 function as a protein that transfer between the nucleus and cytoplasm and play an important role in ribosome biogenesis, centrosome duplication during mitosis, and cell proliferation and apoptosis24. NPM1 mutations usually occur in exon 12 in the C-terminus of the protein and can lead to cytoplasmic localization of NPM1 protein24. NPM1 mutations are the most common mutations in AML accounting for 30%–35% of all AML cases and 50%–60% of AML present with a normal karyotype15. NPM1 mutations are frequently mutated with FLT3, DNMT3A, and IDH1-2 mutations, but rarely mutated with other mutations such as BCOR, and CEBPA21,25,26. Studies have shown that NPM1 mutations usually carry a favorable prognosis in the absence of FLT3-ITD and mainly in the presence of IDH1-217,21. However, the favorable outcome of NMP1 mutations can be decreased with the presence of FLT3-ITD19,27. Further, limited data suggests that the favorable prognosis of NPM1 mutations is not affected by the presence of an adverse karyotype although the incidence of NPM1 mutations in this setting is low16,20.

CEBPA

CEBPA is a transcription factor involved in neutrophil differentiation process. Mutations in CEBPA usually occur in the amino- and carboxy-terminus and can lead to either absence of CABPA expression or shortened protein with negative effect on cell differentiation and apoptosis23,24,28. CEBPA is mutated in approximately 10% of AML patients and is more common in patients with normal karyotype or 9q deletions16. Two thirds of CEBPA mutations in AML are biallelic and usually are associated with favorable outcome compared to monoallelic mutations29–31. In a recent meta-analysis of the impact of CEBPA mutations on OS of AML patients, biallelic mutations were associated with longer OS (9.6 years) compared to monoallelic (1.7 years)29,30. More importantly, one of the allele in biallelis cases can be inherited as germ line mutations that predispose to the acquisition of another somatic mutation in CEBPA or other genes32.

KIT

KIT is a receptor tyrosine kinase that plays an important role in proliferation, differentiation, and cell survival. KIT mutations are loss of function mutations that mainly affect exons 8/17 and occur in 2%–14% with higher prevalence among patients with core-binding factor leukemias25,33–38. Although the prognostic impact of KIT mutations is controversial, compelling evidence suggests that these mutations carry a negative impact on OS in patients with core binding factor leukemias and common practice is to refer these patients to an allogeneic stem cell transplant in first remission25,39–44.

Other gene mutations in AML

ASXL1

ASXL1 gene encodes a chromatin binding protein, which in turn enhance or repress gene transcription in localized areas by chromatin structure modification45,46.

The overall frequency of ASXL1 mutations in AML is approximately 3%–5%25,33,34 but its incidence is higher in patients with intermediate risk AML (including AML with a normal karyotype 11%–17%) and patients with MDS and secondary AML (15%–25%)35,47. However, ASXL1 mutations are rare in children (close to 1%) and their incidence increases with age especially patients of 60 years or older47–49. As a single mutation, ASXL1 is associated with worse OS but this impact may be lost when controlling for prior history of MDS or cytogenetic abnormalities26,33,50. More importantly, ASXL1 mutations can be acquired or lost at the time of relapse suggesting that these mutations can be secondary rather than founder mutations in primary AML51.

DNMT3A

DNMT3A is a DNA methyltransferase that regulates epigenetic alterations through DNA methylation. DNMT3A mutations are common in myeloid malignancies especially in AML and the most common mutation is a substitution of the amino acid arginine at position 882 (R882)52. DNMT3A mutations are frequently found with FLT3-ITD, NPM1, and IDH1-2 mutations though rarely associated with t (15;17) and core binding factor leukemias52. Most of these studies have shown that DNMT3A mutations have a negative impact on OS but this impact can be improved with higher doses of anthracycline chemotherapy25,33.

IDH1/IDH2

IDH1 and IDH2 are two enzymes that play an important role in DNA methylation and histone modification53. IDH1 and IDH2 mutations can affect the active isocitrate binding site and lead to increased level of 2-hydroxyglutarate54. IDH1 mutations occur in 6%–9% of adult AML cases and only 1% of pediatric AML with all mutations affect the arginine residue at either position 132 or 170 (R132 or R170)33–35,48,55,56. These mutations are exclusive of each other and exclusive of the IDH2 mutation. When evaluated as a separate group, mutations in IDH1 appear to have an unfavorable prognosis56. IDH2 mutations occur in 8%–12% of adult AML and only 1%–2% of pediatric cases and mainly affect the arginine residue at either positions 140 or 172 (R140 or R172)33–35,48,55–57. Interestingly, in some studies only the R140 mutation appears to have prognostic impact on survival33,58. Recently IDH2 and IDH1 small molecule inhibitors have entered clinical trials in patients with AML who harbor these mutations. IDH2 inhibitor AG-221 and IDH1 inhibitor AG-120 have demonstrated a very promising efficacy in early trials in AML. An interim analysis of phase 1/2 study of AG-221 in relapsed refractory AML have shown an overall response rate of 41% with 18% of the patients achieving complete remission. Similar response rate was also shown in early studies of AG-120 in relapsed AML59. Based on these promising results, the FDA has granted a Fast Track designation for these agents and advanced clinical trials with these agents are currently underway.

RUNX1

RUNX1 gene encodes the alpha subunit of core binding factor. RUNX1 occurs in 5%–18% of patients with AML and more common in intermediate-risk and poor risk AML without a complex karyotype26,33,35,60. Familial platelet disorder is a condition that predisposes to AML and less commonly T-lymphoblastic leukemia (T-ALL) is associated with Germline RUNX1 mutations61. The impact of RUNX1 mutations on OS is controversial with some studies showing a negative impact while others showing either a favorable or no impact26,33,60. Further, a recent study suggested that allogeneic stem cell transplant can overcome the negative impact of RUNX1 mutations in patients with AML60.

TET2

TET2 protein is an epigenetic modifier that convert methylcytosine to 5-hydroxymethylcytosine. TET2 mutations are found in 7%–10% of adult AML cases and 1.5%–4% of pediatric AML cases48,62,63. In AML patients the frequency of TET2 mutations correlates with increased age35. Interestingly, TET2 mutations were found in elderly individuals without evidence of hematologic malignancies64. The prognosis of TET2 mutations is controversial with some studies and showed a worse OS in AML with a normal karyotype while others did not25,33,65,66.

TP53

TP53 is a tumor suppressor gene that plays an important role in the regulation of the cell cycle in response to cellular stress. TP53 mutations are found in approximately 20%–25% of patients with secondary AML but only in 2%–9% of patients with primary AML and 1% of pediatric AML25,26,33,48. TP53 mutations are frequently found with a complex karyotype but rarely occur with CEBPA, NPM1, FLT3-ITD, and RUNX1 mutations26. Overall, TP53 mutations carry a very poor outcome independent from other prognostic factors such as complex karyotype25,26.

WT1

WT1 is a tumor suppressor gene that play an oncogenic role in leukemia67. Approximately 1%–5% of patients with AML have WT1 mutations68,69. Several studies have shown that AML patients with normal karyotype and WT1 overexpression have a higher chance of relapse and poor OS68,69. Further, some studies have suggested that WT1 mutations can be also used as a minimal residual disease marker at complete response and relapse70,71.

NRAS and KRAS

KRAS and NRAS are genes in the RAS GTPase pathway. NRAS mutations are present in 8%–13% of AML cases while KRAS can be found in 2% of adult AML and 9% of pediatric cases33–35,48,72. Although some small studies have suggested that the presence of NRAS mutations is associated with worse outcome, studies with larger number have shown no impact on OS73,74. Similarly, the impact of KRAS mutations on OS is neutral75.

EZH2

EZH2 is a catalytic component of polycomb repressive complex 2 that plays an important role in stem cell developments. Gain of function mutations in EZH2 gene has been reported in lymphoma while inactivating mutations have been described in leukemia including AML76.

EZH2 mutations have been reported in 2% of patients with AML and 3%-13% of patients with myeloprolifrative neoplasms. The impact of EZH2 mutations on OS in AML has not been documented.

Mutations in cohesin complex members

Recent studies of WGS and WES have identified recurrent somatic mutations in genes encoding cohesin complex members including SMC1A, SMC3, RAD21, and STAG1/2. These genes play important roles in DNA repair and looping77–79.

Mutations in cohesin complex are found in approximately 6% of patients with primary AML and 20% of patients with secondary AML and usually are associated with mutations in RUNX1, BCOR, and ASXL1 and are mutually exclusive with NPM1 mutations78,79. The impact of these mutations on OS in AML has been neutral78,79.

Mutations in splicing machinery

The most common splicing factor gene abnormalities involved in AML are SF3B1, U2AF1, SRSF2, and ZRSR2. These mutations are mutually exclusive and can be defined as founder mutations or associated with certain phenotype in a subset of patients such as SF3B1 mutations in MDS patients with ring sideroblasts and SRSF2 in chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML)80–82. Splicesome mutations are more common in patients with MDS and secondary AML and can be defined as founder lesions whereas their incidence in newly diagnosed primary AML patients is lower and their impact on disease pathophysiology in this setting is less understood83. Functionally, these mutations interfere with pre-mRNA splicing of genes that are functionally important in MDS and AML such as BCOR and MLL2, and EZH2 which in turn affect hematopoiesis84,85. Several targeted therapies for splicesome machinery mutations are currently in preclinical devolvement and the results of these agents have been promising.

Conclusions

Several advances have been made in our understanding of cancer biology since the completion of the human genome project in 2003. These advances have highlighted the genomic landscape of several caners including AML. Recent studies have suggested an important role of genomic information in AML diagnosis, prognosis and development of targeted therapies. Despite all these advances, our ability to translate this knowledge into clinically relevant information lagged behind. Today conventional cytogenetic analysis remains the base of risk stratification of AML and the addition of few mutations such as FLT3, NPM1, and CEBPA have shown to impact the overall outcome in patients with normal karyotype. This approach does not take into account the complexity of genomic information and the interplay between genomic and clinical data. Further, targeting commonly mutated genes like FLT3 and IDH1/2 has improved the outcome of AML patients who carry these mutations but did not translate into higher curative rates. Novel methods to take advantage of the genomic information is needed to advance precision medicine in AML.

Conflict of interest statement

No potential conflicts of interest are disclosed.

  • Received July 16, 2016.
  • Accepted November 8, 2016.
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) 4.0, which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

References

  1. 1.↵
    Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network. Genomic and epigenomic landscapes of adult de novo acute myeloid leukemia. N Engl J Med. 2013; 368: 2059–74.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    2. Grimwade D,
    3. Mrózek K.
    Diagnostic and prognostic value of cytogenetics in acute myeloid leukemia. Hematol Oncol Clin North Am. 2011; 25: 1135–61.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    2. Grimwade D,
    3. Ivey A,
    4. Huntly BJ.
    Molecular landscape of acute myeloid leukemia in younger adults and its clinical relevance. Blood. 2016; 127: 29–41.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. 4.↵
    2. Vardiman JW,
    3. Thiele J,
    4. Arber DA,
    5. Brunning RD,
    6. Borowitz MJ,
    7. Porwit A, et al.
    The 2008 revision of the World Health Organization (WHO) classification of myeloid neoplasms and acute leukemia: rationale and important changes. Blood. 2009; 114: 937–51.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. 5.↵
    2. Arber DA,
    3. Orazi A,
    4. Hasserjian R,
    5. Thiele J,
    6. Borowitz MJ,
    7. Le Beau MM, et al.
    The 2016 revision to the World Health Organization classification of myeloid neoplasms and acute leukemia. Blood. 2016; 127: 2391–405.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. 6.↵
    2. Soupir CP,
    3. Vergilio JA,
    4. Dal Cin P,
    5. Muzikansky A,
    6. Kantarjian H,
    7. Jones D, et al.
    Philadelphia chromosome-positive acute myeloid leukemia: A rare aggressive leukemia with clinicopathologic features distinct from chronic myeloid leukemia in myeloid blast crisis. Am J Clin Pathol. 2007; 127: 642–50.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    2. Konoplev S,
    3. Yin CC,
    4. Kornblau SM,
    5. Kantarjian HM,
    6. Konopleva M,
    7. Andreeff M, et al.
    Molecular characterization of de novo Philadelphia chromosome-positive acute myeloid leukemia. Leuk Lymphoma. 2013; 54: 138–44.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    2. Gröschel S,
    3. Sanders MA,
    4. Hoogenboezem R,
    5. de Wit E,
    6. Bouwman BAM,
    7. Erpelinck C, et al.
    A single oncogenic enhancer rearrangement causes concomitant EVI1 and GATA2 deregulation in leukemia. Cell. 2014; 157: 369–81.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    2. Yamazaki H,
    3. Suzuki M,
    4. Otsuki A,
    5. Shimizu R,
    6. Bresnick EH,
    7. Engel JD, et al.
    A remote GATA2 hematopoietic enhancer drives leukemogenesis in inv(3)(q21; q26) by activating EVI1 expression. Cancer Cell. 2014; 25: 415–27.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    2. Jaiswal S,
    3. Fontanillas P,
    4. Flannick J,
    5. Manning A,
    6. Grauman PV,
    7. Mar BG, et al.
    Age-related clonal hematopoiesis associated with adverse outcomes. N Engl J Med. 2014; 371: 2488–98.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. 11.
    2. Genovese G,
    3. Kähler AK,
    4. Handsaker RE,
    5. Lindberg J,
    6. Rose SA,
    7. Bakhoum SF, et al.
    Clonal hematopoiesis and blood-cancer risk inferred from blood DNA sequence. N Engl J Med. 2014; 371: 2477–87.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. 12.↵
    2. Xie M,
    3. Lu C,
    4. Wang J,
    5. McLellan MD,
    6. Johnson KJ,
    7. Wendl MC, et al.
    Age-related mutations associated with clonal hematopoietic expansion and malignancies. Nat Med. 2014; 20: 1472–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. 13.↵
    2. Li S,
    3. Garrett-Bakelman FE,
    4. Chung SS,
    5. Sanders MA,
    6. Hricik T,
    7. Rapaport F, et al.
    Distinct evolution and dynamics of epigenetic and genetic heterogeneity in acute myeloid leukemia. Nat. Med. 2016; 22: 792–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    2. Levis M.
    FLT3 mutations in acute myeloid leukemia: what is the best approach in 2013? Hematology Am Soc Hematol Educ Program. 2013; 2013: 220–6.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  15. 15.↵
    2. Ofran Y,
    3. Rowe JM.
    Genetic profiling in acute myeloid leukaemia--where are we and what is its role in patient management. Br J Haematol. 2013; 160: 303–20.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. 16.↵
    2. Martelli MP,
    3. Sportoletti P,
    4. Tiacci E,
    5. Martelli MF,
    6. Falini B.
    Mutational landscape of AML with normal cytogenetics: biological and clinical implications. Blood Rev. 2013; 27: 13–22.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. 17.↵
    2. Whitman SP,
    3. Archer KJ,
    4. Feng L,
    5. Baldus C,
    6. Becknell B,
    7. Carlson BD, et al.
    Absence of the wild-type allele predicts poor prognosis in adult de novo acute myeloid leukemia with normal cytogenetics and the internal tandem duplication of FLT3: A cancer and leukemia group B study. Cancer Res. 2001; 61: 7233–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  18. 18.↵
    2. Schnittger S,
    3. Bacher U,
    4. Haferlach C,
    5. Alpermann T,
    6. Kern W,
    7. Haferlach T.
    Diversity of the juxtamembrane and TKD1 mutations (Exons 13–15) in the FLT3 gene with regards to mutant load, sequence, length, localization, and correlation with biological data. Genes Chromosomes Cancer. 2012; 51: 910–24.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. 19.↵
    2. Gale RE,
    3. Green C,
    4. Allen C,
    5. Mead AJ,
    6. Burnett AK,
    7. Hills RK, et al.
    The impact of FLT3 internal tandem duplication mutant level, number, size, and interaction with NPM1 mutations in a large cohort of young adult patients with acute myeloid leukemia. Blood. 2008; 111: 2776–84.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  20. 20.↵
    2. Kayser S,
    3. Schlenk RF,
    4. Londono MC,
    5. Breitenbuecher F,
    6. Wittke K,
    7. Du J, et al.
    Insertion of FLT3 internal tandem duplication in the tyrosine kinase domain-1 is associated with resistance to chemotherapy and inferior outcome. Blood. 2009; 114: 2386–92.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  21. 21.↵
    2. Schlenk RF,
    3. Kayser S,
    4. Bullinger L,
    5. Kobbe G,
    6. Casper J,
    7. Ringhoffer M, et al.
    Differential impact of allelic ratio and insertion site in FLT3-ITD-positive aml with respect to allogeneic transplantation. Blood. 2014; 124: 3441–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  22. 22.↵
    2. Blau O,
    3. Berenstein R,
    4. Sindram A,
    5. Blau IW.
    Molecular analysis of different FLT3-ITD mutations in acute myeloid leukemia. Leuk Lymphoma. 2013; 54: 145–52.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. 23.↵
    2. Alvarado Y,
    3. Kantarjian HM,
    4. Luthra R,
    5. Ravandi F,
    6. Borthakur G,
    7. Garcia-Manero G, et al.
    Treatment with FLT3 inhibitor in patients with FLT3-mutated acute myeloid leukemia is associated with development of secondary FLT3-tyrosine kinase domain mutations. Cancer. 2014; 120: 2142–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. 24.↵
    2. Falini B,
    3. Albiero E,
    4. Bolli N,
    5. De Marco MF,
    6. Madeo D,
    7. Martelli M, et al.
    Aberrant cytoplasmic expression of C-terminal-truncated NPM leukaemic mutant is dictated by tryptophans loss and a new NES motif. Leukemia. 2007; 21: 2052–4; author reply 2054; discussion 2055–6.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  25. 25.↵
    2. Kihara R,
    3. Nagata Y,
    4. Kiyoi H,
    5. Kato T,
    6. Yamamoto E,
    7. Suzuki K, et al.
    Comprehensive analysis of genetic alterations and their prognostic impacts in adult acute myeloid leukemia patients. Leukemia. 2014; 28: 1586–95.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. 26.↵
    2. Grossmann V,
    3. Schnittger S,
    4. Kohlmann A,
    5. Eder C,
    6. Roller A,
    7. Dicker F, et al.
    A novel hierarchical prognostic model of AML solely based on molecular mutations. Blood. 2012; 120: 2963–72.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  27. 27.↵
    2. Schnittger S,
    3. Bacher U,
    4. Kern W,
    5. Alpermann T,
    6. Haferlach C,
    7. Haferlach T.
    Prognostic impact of FLT3-ITD load in NPM1 mutated acute myeloid leukemia. Leukemia. 2011; 25: 1297–304.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. 28.↵
    2. Pabst T,
    3. Mueller BU,
    4. Zhang P,
    5. Radomska HS,
    6. Narravula S,
    7. Schnittger S, et al.
    Dominant-negative mutations of CEBPA, encoding CCAAT/enhancer binding protein-α (C/EBPα), in acute myeloid leukemia. Nat Genet. 2001; 27: 263–70.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. 29.↵
    2. Li HY,
    3. Deng DH,
    4. Huang Y,
    5. Ye FH,
    6. Huang LL,
    7. Xiao Q, et al.
    Favorable prognosis of biallelic CEBPA gene mutations in acute myeloid leukemia patients: a meta-analysis. Eur J Haematol. 2015; 94: 439–48.
    OpenUrl
  30. 30.↵
    2. Pastore F,
    3. Kling D,
    4. Hoster E,
    5. Dufour A,
    6. Konstandin NP,
    7. Schneider S, et al.
    Long-term follow-up of cytogenetically normal CEBPA-mutated AML. J Hematol Oncol. 2014; 7: 55.
    OpenUrl
  31. 31.↵
    2. Wouters BJ,
    3. Lowenberg B,
    4. Erpelinck-Verschueren CA,
    5. van Putten WL,
    6. Valk PJ,
    7. Delwel R.
    Double CEBPA mutations, but not single CEBPA mutations, define a subgroup of acute myeloid leukemia with a distinctive gene expression profile that is uniquely associated with a favorable outcome. Blood. 2009; 113: 3088–91.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  32. 32.↵
    2. Tawana K,
    3. Wang J,
    4. Renneville A,
    5. Bödör C,
    6. Hills R,
    7. Loveday C, et al.
    Disease evolution and outcomes in familial AML with germline CEBPA mutations. Blood. 2015; 126: 1214–23.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  33. 33.↵
    2. Patel JP,
    3. Gönen M,
    4. Figueroa ME,
    5. Fernandez H,
    6. Sun Z,
    7. Racevskis J, et al.
    Prognostic relevance of integrated genetic profiling in acute myeloid leukemia. N Engl J Med. 2012; 366: 1079–89.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. 34.↵
    2. Shen Y,
    3. Zhu YM,
    4. Fan X,
    5. Shi JY,
    6. Wang QR,
    7. Yan XJ, et al.
    Gene mutation patterns and their prognostic impact in a cohort of 1185 patients with acute myeloid leukemia. Blood. 2011; 118: 5593–603.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  35. 35.↵
    2. Tian X,
    3. Xu Y,
    4. Yin J,
    5. Tian H,
    6. Chen S,
    7. Wu D, et al.
    TET2 gene mutation is unfavorable prognostic factor in cytogenetically normal acute myeloid leukemia patients with NPM1+ and FLT3-Itd - mutations. Int J Hematol. 2014; 100: 96–104.
    OpenUrl
  36. 36.
    2. Care RS,
    3. Valk PJM,
    4. Goodeve AC,
    5. Abu-Duhier FM,
    6. Geertsma-Kleinekoort WMC,
    7. Wilson GA, et al.
    Incidence and prognosis of c-KIT and FLT3 mutations in core binding factor (CBF) acute myeloid leukaemias. Br J Haematol. 2003; 121: 775–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. 37.
    2. Beghini A,
    3. Ripamonti CB,
    4. Cairoli R,
    5. Cazzaniga G,
    6. Colapietro P,
    7. Elice F, et al.
    Kit activating mutations: incidence in adult and pediatric acute myeloid leukemia, and identification of an internal tandem duplication. Haematologica. 2004; 89: 920–5.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  38. 38.↵
    2. Mrózek K,
    3. Marcucci G,
    4. Paschka P,
    5. Bloomfield CD.
    Advances in molecular genetics and treatment of core-binding factor acute myeloid leukemia. Curr Opin Oncol 2008; 20: 711–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  39. 39.↵
    2. Paschka P,
    3. Marcucci G,
    4. Ruppert AS,
    5. Mrózek K,
    6. Chen H,
    7. Kittles RA, et al.
    Adverse prognostic significance of KIT mutations in adult acute myeloid leukemia with inv(16) and t(8; 21): a cancer and leukemia group B study. J Clin Oncol. 2006; 24: 3904–11.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  40. 40.
    2. Cairoli R,
    3. Beghini A,
    4. Grillo G,
    5. Nadali G,
    6. Elice F,
    7. Ripamonti CB, et al.
    Prognostic impact of c-KIT mutations in core binding factor leukemias: an italian retrospective study. Blood. 2006; 107: 3463–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  41. 41.
    2. Park SH,
    3. Chi HS,
    4. Min SK,
    5. Park BG,
    6. Jang S,
    7. Park CJ.
    Prognostic impact of c-KIT mutations in core binding factor acute myeloid leukemia. Leuk Res. 2011; 35: 1376–83.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  42. 42.
    2. Boissel N,
    3. Leroy H,
    4. Brethon B,
    5. Philippe N,
    6. de Botton S,
    7. Auvrignon A, et al.
    Incidence and prognostic impact of c-Kit, FLT3, and ras gene mutations in core binding factor acute myeloid leukemia (CBF-AML). Leukemia. 2006; 20: 965–70.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  43. 43.
    2. Jourdan E,
    3. Boissel N,
    4. Chevret S,
    5. Delabesse E,
    6. Renneville A,
    7. Cornillet P, et al.
    Prospective evaluation of gene mutations and minimal residual disease in patients with core binding factor acute myeloid leukemia. Blood. 2013; 121: 2213–23.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  44. 44.↵
    2. Cairoli R,
    3. Beghini A,
    4. Turrini M,
    5. Bertani G,
    6. Nadali G,
    7. Rodeghiero F, et al.
    Old and new prognostic factors in acute myeloid leukemia with deranged core-binding factor beta. Am J Hematol. 2013; 88: 594–600.
    OpenUrl
  45. 45.↵
    2. Devillier R,
    3. Gelsi-Boyer V,
    4. Brecqueville M,
    5. Carbuccia N,
    6. Murati A,
    7. Vey N, et al.
    Acute myeloid leukemia with myelodysplasia-related changes are characterized by a specific molecular pattern with high frequency of ASXL1 mutations. Am J Hematol. 2012; 87: 659–62.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  46. 46.↵
    2. Fernandez-Mercado M,
    3. Yip BH,
    4. Pellagatti A,
    5. Davies C,
    6. Larrayoz MJ,
    7. Kondo T, et al.
    Mutation patterns of 16 genes in primary and secondary acute myeloid leukemia (AML) with normal cytogenetics. PLoS One. 2012; 7: e42334.
  47. 47.↵
    2. Schnittger S,
    3. Eder C,
    4. Jeromin S,
    5. Alpermann T,
    6. Fasan A,
    7. Grossmann V, et al.
    ASXL1 exon 12 mutations are frequent in aml with intermediate risk karyotype and are independently associated with an adverse outcome. Leukemia. 2013; 27: 82–91.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  48. 48.↵
    2. Liang DC,
    3. Liu HC,
    4. Yang CP,
    5. Jaing TH,
    6. Hung IJ,
    7. Yeh TC, et al.
    Cooperating gene mutations in childhood acute myeloid leukemia with special reference on mutations of ASXL1, TET2, IDH1, IDH2, and DNMT3A. Blood. 2013; 121: 2988–95.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  49. 49.↵
    2. El-Sharkawi D,
    3. Ali A,
    4. Evans CM,
    5. Hills RK,
    6. Burnett AK,
    7. Linch DC, et al.
    ASXL1 mutations are infrequent in young patients with primary acute myeloid leukemia and their detection has a limited role in therapeutic risk stratification. Leuk Lymphoma. 2014; 55: 1326–31.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  50. 50.↵
    2. Metzeler KH,
    3. Becker H,
    4. Maharry K,
    5. Radmacher MD,
    6. Kohlschmidt J,
    7. Mrózek K, et al.
    ASXL1 mutations identify a high-risk subgroup of older patients with primary cytogenetically normal AML within the ELN favorable genetic category. Blood. 2011; 118: 6920–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  51. 51.↵
    2. Chou WC,
    3. Huang HH,
    4. Hou HA,
    5. Chen CY,
    6. Tang JL,
    7. Yao M, et al.
    Distinct clinical and biological features of de novo acute myeloid leukemia with additional sex comb-like 1(ASXL1) mutations. Blood. 2010; 116: 4086–94.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  52. 52.↵
    2. Ibrahem L,
    3. Mahfouz R,
    4. Elhelw L,
    5. Abdsalam EM,
    6. Soliman R.
    Prognostic significance of DNMT3A mutations in patients with acute myeloid leukemia. Blood Cells Mol Dis. 2015; 54: 84–9.
    OpenUrl
  53. 53.↵
    2. Lu C,
    3. Ward PS,
    4. Kapoor GS,
    5. Rohle D,
    6. Turcan S,
    7. Abdel-Wahab O, et al.
    IDH mutation impairs histone demethylation and results in a block to cell differentiation. Nature. 2012; 483: 474–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  54. 54.↵
    2. Ward PS,
    3. Cross JR,
    4. Lu C,
    5. Weigert O,
    6. Abel-Wahab O,
    7. Levine RL, et al.
    Identification of additional IDH mutations associated with oncometabolite R(-)-2-hydroxyglutarate production. Oncogene. 2012; 31: 2491–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  55. 55.↵
    2. Paschka P,
    3. Schlenk RF,
    4. Gaidzik VI,
    5. Habdank M,
    6. Krönke J,
    7. Bullinger L, et al.
    IDH1 and IDH2 mutations are frequent genetic alterations in acute myeloid leukemia and confer adverse prognosis in cytogenetically normal acute myeloid leukemia with NPM1 mutation without FLT3 internal tandem duplication. J Clin Oncol. 2010; 28: 3636–43.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  56. 56.↵
    2. Abbas S,
    3. Lugthart S,
    4. Kavelaars FG,
    5. Schelen A,
    6. Koenders JE,
    7. Zeilemaker A, et al.
    Acquired mutations in the genes encoding IDH1 and IDH2 both are recurrent aberrations in acute myeloid leukemia: prevalence and prognostic value. Blood. 2010; 116: 2122–6.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  57. 57.↵
    2. Ho PA,
    3. Kutny MA,
    4. Alonzo TA,
    5. Gerbing RB,
    6. Joaquin J,
    7. Raimondi SC, et al.
    Leukemic mutations in the methylation-associated genes DNMT3A and IDH2 are rare events in pediatric AML: a report from the children’s oncology group. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2011; 57: 204–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  58. 58.↵
    2. Green CL,
    3. Evans CM,
    4. Hills RK,
    5. Burnett AK,
    6. Linch DC,
    7. Gale RE.
    The prognostic significance of IDH1 mutations in younger adult patients with acute myeloid leukemia is dependent on FLT3/ITD status. Blood. 2010; 116: 2779–82.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  59. 59.↵
    2. Stein EM,
    3. Tallman MS.
    Emerging therapeutic drugs for AML. Blood. 2016; 127: 71–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  60. 60.↵
    2. Gaidzik VI,
    3. Bullinger L,
    4. Schlenk RF,
    5. Zimmermann AS,
    6. Röck J,
    7. Paschka P, et al.
    RUNX1 mutations in acute myeloid leukemia: results from a comprehensive genetic and clinical analysis from the AML study group. J Clin Oncol. 2011; 29: 1364–72.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  61. 61.↵
    2. Preudhomme C,
    3. Renneville A,
    4. Bourdon V,
    5. Philippe N,
    6. Roche-Lestienne C,
    7. Boissel N, et al.
    High frequency of RUNX1 biallelic alteration in acute myeloid leukemia secondary to familial platelet disorder. Blood. 2009; 113: 5583–7.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  62. 62.↵
    2. Aslanyan MG,
    3. Kroeze LI,
    4. Langemeijer SMC,
    5. Koorenhof-Scheele TN,
    6. Massop M,
    7. van Hoogen P, et al.
    Clinical and biological impact of TET2 mutations and expression in younger adult AML patients treated within the EORTC/GIMEMA AML-12 clinical trial. Ann Hematol. 2014; 93: 1401–12.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  63. 63.↵
    2. Langemeijer SMC,
    3. Jansen JH,
    4. Hooijer J,
    5. van Hoogen P,
    6. Stevens-Linders E,
    7. Massop M, et al.
    TET2 mutations in childhood leukemia. Leukemia. 2011; 25: 189–92.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  64. 64.↵
    2. Busque L,
    3. Patel JP,
    4. Figueroa ME,
    5. Vasanthakumar A,
    6. Provost S,
    7. Hamilou Z, et al.
    Recurrent somatic TET2 mutations in normal elderly individuals with clonal hematopoiesis. Nat Genet. 2012; 44: 1179–81.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  65. 65.↵
    2. Gaidzik VI,
    3. Paschka P,
    4. Späth D,
    5. Habdank M,
    6. Köhne CH,
    7. Germing U, et al.
    TET2 mutations in acute myeloid leukemia (AML): Results from a comprehensive genetic and clinical analysis of the AML study group. J Clin Oncol. 2012; 30: 1350–7.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  66. 66.↵
    2. Metzeler KH,
    3. Maharry K,
    4. Radmacher MD,
    5. Mrózek K,
    6. Margeson D,
    7. Becker H, et al.
    TET2 mutations improve the new European LeukemiaNet risk classification of acute myeloid leukemia: a cancer and leukemia group B study. J Clin Oncolo. 2011; 29: 1373–81.
    OpenUrl
  67. 67.↵
    2. Yang L,
    3. Han Y,
    4. Suarez Saiz F,
    5. Minden MD.
    A tumor suppressor and oncogene: the WT1 story. Leukemia. 2007; 21: 868–76.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  68. 68.↵
    2. Lyu X,
    3. Xin Y,
    4. Mi R,
    5. Ding J,
    6. Wang X,
    7. Hu J, et al.
    Overexpression of Wilms tumor 1 gene as a negative prognostic indicator in acute myeloid leukemia. PLoS One. 2014; 9: e92470.
  69. 69.↵
    2. Woehlecke C,
    3. Wittig S,
    4. Arndt C,
    5. Gruhn B.
    Prognostic impact of WT1 expression prior to hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in children with malignant hematological diseases. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2015; 141: 523–9.
    OpenUrl
  70. 70.↵
    2. Rossi G,
    3. Carella AM,
    4. Minervini MM,
    5. Savino L,
    6. Fontana A,
    7. Pellegrini F, et al.
    Minimal residual disease after allogeneic stem cell transplant: A comparison among multiparametric flow cytometry, wilms tumor 1 expression and chimerism status (Complete chimerism versus Low Level Mixed Chimerism) in acute leukemia. Leuk Lymphoma. 2013; 54: 2660–6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  71. 71.↵
    2. Yoon JH,
    3. Kim HJ,
    4. Shin SH,
    5. Yahng SA,
    6. Lee SE,
    7. Cho BS, et al.
    BAALC and WT1 expressions from diagnosis to hematopoietic stem cell transplantation: consecutive monitoring in adult patients with core-binding-factor-positive AML. Eur J Haematol. 2013; 91: 112–21.
    OpenUrl
  72. 72.↵
    2. Schlenk RF,
    3. Dohner K,
    4. Krauter J,
    5. Fröhling S,
    6. Corbacioglu A,
    7. Bullinger L, et al.
    Mutations and treatment outcome in cytogenetically normal acute myeloid leukemia. N Engl J Med. 2008; 358: 1909–18.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  73. 73.↵
    2. Berman JN,
    3. Gerbing RB,
    4. Alonzo TA,
    5. Ho PA,
    6. Miller K,
    7. Hurwitz C, et al.
    Prevalence and clinical implications of NRAS mutations in childhood AML: A report from the Children’s Oncology Group. Leukemia. 2011; 25: 1039–42.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  74. 74.↵
    2. Bacher U,
    3. Haferlach T,
    4. Schoch C,
    5. Kern W,
    6. Schnittger S.
    Implications of NRAS mutations in AML: a study of 2502 patients. Blood. 2006; 107: 3847–53.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  75. 75.↵
    2. Bowen DT,
    3. Frew ME,
    4. Hills R,
    5. Gale RE,
    6. Wheatley K,
    7. Groves MJ, et al.
    RAS mutation in acute myeloid leukemia is associated with distinct cytogenetic subgroups but does not influence outcome in patients younger than 60 years. Blood. 2005; 106: 2113–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  76. 76.↵
    2. Lund K,
    3. Adams PD,
    4. Copland M.
    EZH2 in normal and malignant hematopoiesis. Leukemia. 2014; 28: 44–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  77. 77.↵
    2. Leeke B,
    3. Marsman J,
    4. O’Sullivan JM,
    5. Horsfield JA.
    Cohesin mutations in myeloid malignancies: underlying mechanisms. Exp Hematol Oncol. 2014; 3: 13.
    OpenUrl
  78. 78.↵
    2. Thol F,
    3. Bollin R,
    4. Gehlhaar M,
    5. Walter C,
    6. Dugas M,
    7. Suchanek KJ, et al.
    Mutations in the cohesin complex in acute myeloid leukemia: clinical and prognostic implications. Blood. 2014; 123: 914–20.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  79. 79.↵
    2. Thota S,
    3. Viny AD,
    4. Makishima H,
    5. Spitzer B,
    6. Radivoyevitch T,
    7. Przychodzen B, et al.
    Genetic alterations of the cohesin complex genes in myeloid malignancies. Blood. 2014; 124: 1790–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  80. 80.↵
    2. Cazzola M,
    3. Della Porta MG,
    4. Malcovati L.
    The genetic basis of myelodysplasia and its clinical relevance. Blood. 2013; 122: 4021–34.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  81. 81.
    2. Papaemmanuil E,
    3. Gerstung M,
    4. Malcovati L,
    5. Tauro S,
    6. Gundem G,
    7. Van Loo P, et al.
    Clinical and biological implications of driver mutations in myelodysplastic syndromes. Blood. 2013; 122: 3616–27; quiz 3699. 3699.
    OpenUrl
  82. 82.↵
    2. Yoshida K,
    3. Sanada M,
    4. Shiraishi Y,
    5. Nowak D,
    6. Nagata Y,
    7. Yamamoto R, et al.
    Frequent pathway mutations of splicing machinery in myelodysplasia. Nature. 2011; 478: 64–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  83. 83.↵
    2. Lindsley RC,
    3. Mar BG,
    4. Mazzola E,
    5. Grauman PV,
    6. Shareef S,
    7. Allen SL, et al.
    Acute myeloid leukemia ontogeny is defined by distinct somatic mutations. Blood. 2015; 125: 1367–76.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  84. 84.↵
    2. Shirai CL,
    3. Ley JN,
    4. White BS,
    5. Kim S,
    6. Tibbitts J,
    7. Shao J, et al.
    Mutant U2AF1 expression alters hematopoiesis and Pre-mRNA splicing in vivo. Cancer Cell. 2015; 27: 631–43.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  85. 85.↵
    2. Kim E,
    3. Ilagan JO,
    4. Liang Y,
    5. Daubner GM,
    6. Lee SC,
    7. Ramakrishnan A, et al.
    SRSF2 mutations contribute to myelodysplasia by mutant-specific effects on exon recognition. Cancer Cell. 2015; 27: 617–30.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
Back to top

In this issue

Print
Download PDF
Email Article
Citation Tools

Jump to section

Keywords