34. Döhner H,Estey E,Grimwade D, et al. Diagnosis and management of AML in adults: 2017 ELN recommendations from an international expert panel. Blood. 2017;129:424-447.
35. Zhu HH, Zhang XH, Qin YZ, et al. MRD-directed risk stratification treatment may improve outcomes of t(8;21) AML in the first complete remission: results from the AML05 multicenter trial. Blood. 2013;121:4056-4062.
Figure 1. CIR, DFS and OS in the pediatric and adult patients.(1) CIR: children vs. adults: 21.8%±5.4% vs. 34.1%±5.5%, P=0.037 (A1); MDAC-based regimen: children 11.9%±5.0% vs. adults 16.3%±6.7%, P=0.467 (A2); SDAC-based regimen: children 45.8%±12.0% vs. adults 47.5%±7.6%, P=0.517 (A3). (2) DFS: children vs. adults: 74.3%±5.6% vs. 58.2%±5.4%, P=0.021 (B1); MDAC-based regimen: children 86.2%±5.3% vs. adults 83.7%±6.7%, P=0.959 (B2); SDAC-based regimen: children 50.3%±11.8% vs. adults 50.0%±7.7%, P=0.581 (B3). (3) OS: children vs. adults: 83.2%±4.9% vs. 59.5%±5.4%, P=0.001 (C1); MDAC-based regimen: children 9.1%±4.7% vs. adults 87.0%±6.1%, P=0.701 (C2); SDAC-based regimen: children 63.4%±12.0% vs. adults 50.0%±7.7%, P=0.157 (C3).
Supplemental figure 1. CIR, DFS and OS in pediatric and adult patients at two year interim. (1) 2-year CIR: children 30.8%±6.4% vs. adults 43.1%±6.1%, P=0.046 (A); (2) 2-year DFS: children 66.9%±6.1% vs. adults 55.3%±5.5%, P=0.014 (B); (3) 2-year OS: children 77.0%±5.7% vs. adults 56.5%±5.5%, P=0.005 (C).
Supplemental figure 2. The effect of consolidation regimens on CIR, DFS and OS. (1) CIR: MDAC-based 13.6%±4.0% vs. SDAC-based 47.2%±6.5%, P<0.001 (A); (2) DFS: MDAC-based 85.3%±4.1% vs. SDAC-based 49.6%±6.5%, P<0.001 (B); (3) OS: MDAC-based 90.6%±3.4% vs. SDAC-based 53.6%±6.5%, P<0.001 (C).
Figure 2. The effect of EML on CIR, DFS and OS. (1) CIR: Total, with 49.9%±9.4% vs. without 22.6%±4.1%, P=0.000 (A1); Adults, with 54.6%±10.8% vs. without 26.0%±6.1%, P=0.002 (A2); Children, with 38.3%±18.0% vs. without 19.3%±5.5%, P=0.082 (A3). (2) DFS: Total, with 44.6%±8.7% vs. without 71.3%±4.3%, P=0.000 (B1); Adults, with 38.7%±9.7% vs. without 66.6%±6.2%, P=0.003 (B2); Children, with 61.7%±18.0% vs. without 76.2%±5.8%, P=0.205 (B3). (3) OS: Total, with 45.9%±8.9% vs. without 76.6%±4.0%, P=0.000 (C1); Adults, with 38.7%±9.7% vs. without, 68.4%±6.1%, P=0.001 (C2); Children, with 68.6%±18.6% vs. without 85.0%±4.9%, P=0.579 (C3).
Figure 3. The effect of c-KIT mutation on CIR, DFS and OS. (1) CIR: Total, mutation 42.3%+8.9% vs. WT 23.5%+4.8%, P=0.009 (A1); Adults, mutation 52.4%±10.2% vs. WT 22.8%±7.3%, P=0.005 (A2); Children, mutation 20.0%±17.9% vs. WT 23.6%±6.3%, P=0.372 (A3). (2) DFS: Total, mutation 52.1%+8.7% vs. WT 71.1%+5.0%, P=0.014 (B1); Adults, mutation 44.5%±9.7% vs. WT 68.5%±7.8%, P=0.015 (B2); Children, mutation 68.6%±18.6% vs. WT 73.3%±6.4%, P=0.602 (B3). (3) OS: Total, 55.6%+8.5% vs. WT 76.4%+4.7%, P=0.008 (C1); Adults, mutation 44.5%±9.7% vs. WT 68.5%±7.8%, P=0.021 (C2); Children, mutation 85.7%±13.2% vs. WT 82.5%±5.7%, P=0.537 (C3).
Supplemental figure 3. The effect of EML on CIR in children and adults treated with MDAC- or SDAC-based regimens. (1) Adults with MDAC-based regimens, with 38.6%±15.3% vs. without 11.2%±7.5%, P=0.028 (A1); (2) Adults with SDAC-based regimens, with 70.0%±14.0% vs. without 39.8%±8.7%, P=0.003 (A2); (3) Children with MDAC-based regimens, with 0 vs. without 12.6%±5.3%, P=0.529 (B1); (4) Children with SDAC-based regimens, with 60.0%±21.9% vs. without 40.4%±14.1%, P=0.377 (B2).
Supplemental figure 4. The effect of c-KIT mutations on CIR in children and adults treated with MDAC- or SDAC-based regimens. (1) Adults with MDAC-based regimens: mutation 46.7%±17.3% vs. WT 20.0%±17.9%, P=0.003 (A1); (2) Adults with SDAC-based regimens: mutation 63.3%±12.5% vs. WT 44.1%±12.2%, P=0.263 (A2); (3) Children with MDAC-based regimens: mutation 0 vs. WT 14.8%±6.1%, P=0.264 (B1); (4) Children with SDAC-based regimens: mutation 100% vs. WT 49.2%±14.4% P=0.991 (B2).
Supplemental figure 5. The effect of EML on DFS in children and adults treated with MDAC- or SDAC-based regimens. (1) Adult with MDAC-based regimens: with 61.4%±15.3% vs. without 88.8%±7.5%, P=0.028 (A1); (2) Adults with SDAC-based regimens: with 30.0%±14.0% vs. without 56.9%±8.8%, P=0.004 (A2); (3) Children with MDAC regimens: with 100% vs. without 85.4%±5.6%, P=0.469 (B1); (4) Children with SDAC-based regimens: with 40.%±21.9% vs. without 54.2%±13.8%, P=0.483 (B2).
Supplemental figure 6. The effect of c-KIT mutations on DFS in children and adults treated with MDAC- or SDAC-based regimens. (1) Adults with MDAC-based regimens: mutation 66.7%±15.7% vs. WT 100%, P=0.003 (A1); (2) Adults with SDAC-based regimens: mutation 36.7%±12.5% vs. WT 49.7%±12.3%, P=0.343 (A2); (3) Children with MDAC-based regimens: mutation 100% vs. WT 82.8%±6.4%, P=0.208 (B1); (4) Children with SDAC-based regimens: mutation 0 vs. WT 50.8%±14.4%, P=0.413 (B2).
Supplemental figure 7. The effect of EML on OS in children and adults treated with MDAC- or SDAC-based regimens. (1) Adults with MDAC-based regimens: with 61.4%±15.3% vs. without 93.8%±6.1%, P=0.004 (A1); (2) Adults with SDAC-based regimens: with 30.0%±14.0% vs. without 56.9%±8.8%, P=0.003 (A2); (3) Children with MDAC-based regimens: with 100% vs. without 85.4%±5.0%, P=0.589 (B1). (4) Children with SDAC-based regimens: with 50.0%±25.0% vs. without 67.5%±13.4%, P=0.863 (B2).
Supplemental figure 8. The effect of c-KIT mutations on OS in children and adults treated with MDAC- or SDAC-based regimens. (1) Adults with MDAC-based regimens: mutation 66.7%±15.7% vs. WT 100%, P=0.001 (A1); (2) Adults with SDAC-based regimens: mutation 36.7%±12.5% vs. WT 49.7%±12.3%, P=0.449 (A2); (3) Children with MDAC-based regimens: mutation 100% vs. WT 87.8%±5.8%, P=0.353 (B1). (4) Children with SDAC-based regimens: mutation 50.0%±35.4% vs. WT 62.3%±15.2%, P=0.717 (B2).