Acute Myeloid Leukemia with Mutated TP53: is This Newly Proposed Entity Oversimplifying a Complex Group of Neoplasms?
Hong Fang,L Jeffery Medeiros,Wei Wang
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ajh.27085
IF: 13.265
2023-01-01
American Journal of Hematology
Abstract:In the recently published International Consensus Classification (ICC) and the fifth edition of the World Health Organization classification on myeloid neoplasms,1, 2 the importance of TP53 mutation in disease pathogenesis and prognosis is recognized. The ICC goes a step further in recognizing acute myeloid leukemia (AML) with mutated TP53 as a separate distinct entity given that TP53 mutations are associated with aggressive diseases with a poor prognosis. This entity is defined as AML with any somatic TP53 mutation that has a variant allele frequency >10%.1 Here, we aim to address this proposition which we suggest may oversimplify a complex and diverse group of AMLs. Cases of AML with mutated TP53 are highly heterogeneous and have varied morphologic, immunophenotypic, and clinical profiles. Blasts in this disease category present with a wide range of lineage destination and show a morphologic and immunophenotypic diversity ranging from minimal differentiation to granulocytic, erythroid, monocytic, or megakaryocytic differentiation, or rarely a mixed (myeloid and T/B) phenotypic presentation (Figure 1). Although all carry TP53 mutations that are associated with a poorer prognosis, these diverse presentations suggest that AML with mutated TP53 is composed of various biologically different subtypes of AML instead of a single uniform entity. It is intuitive to speculate that the biologic mechanisms underlying these subtypes are different. For example, there should be some fundamental difference between the molecular pathways responsible for erythroid leukemogenesis and those driving monocytic leukemogenesis. The shared TP53 mutations likely play a role at some stages of their leukemia development, but the oncogenesis of these neoplasms is rather mediated by complicated pathways unique to each individual subtype, and beyond the single p53 pathway. In the era of personalized medicine and targeted therapy, lumping all AML cases with mutated TP53 into a single entity without subtype designation potentially could hinder the exploration of molecular mechanisms and novel therapeutic targets for each specific subtype, especially as there are no well-established therapies targeting p53 currently. The legacy of the French–American–British classification, which still influences the current AML classifications, is that classification based on cell type and differentiation holds some value. The incorporation of lineage into the diagnosis will not only facilitate investigating the pathogenesis for each subtype, but potentially could help in the discovery of novel druggable targets. As evidence, ongoing clinical trials are examining the effectiveness of antibodies that target the LILRB4 receptor in treating AML; these trials require monocytic differentiation as an inclusion criterion, regardless of the TP53 mutation status, underscoring the significance of documenting AML lineage in its classification. Furthermore, documenting the morphology and immunophenotype of AML blasts will aid in the evaluation of measurable residual disease after treatment, which plays an important role in therapeutic decision-making and prognostic stratification. We therefore suggest that morphology and immunophenotype should be incorporated into the classification. A recent study showed that different subtypes of TP53 mutated AMLs are associated with different prognosis,3 another evidence to support including these data in the diagnosis. Here, we propose a three-tier diagnostic scheme; diagnosis should begin with the term of AML, followed by its phenotype/lineage designation, and end with the specific genetic abnormalities. An example of this approach would be as follows: “AML, myelomonocytic, TP53 mutated.” A similar diagnostic approach should be applied to all other AMLs such as AML, myelodysplasia-related. As genetic analysis often has a longer turnaround time, a diagnosis using the first two components is appropriate, with the genetic information added later for completeness. In summary, with advances in our understanding of the molecular pathogenesis of hematologic neoplasms, classification systems should incorporate molecular findings as much as possible. We therefore agree that recognizing TP53 mutation in the classification of AMLs is important as its presence indicates a poor prognosis in general. However, relying solely on a single molecular finding to define diseases is likely an oversimplification. The inclusion of disease modifiers such as cell lineage provides valuable information and should be retained as a part of the characterization of all AMLs including TP53-mutated AMLs. Hong Fang, L. Jeffery Medeiros, and Wei Wang wrote the manuscript and approved the final version. The authors declare no conflicts of interest. None.