PubMed HealthSearch

PubMed · 42710088

Age- and sex-adjusted genomic differences between Korean and Beat AML cohorts.

Abstract

Genomic profiling plays a central role in risk stratification and therapeutic decision-making in acute myeloid leukemia (AML), yet the clinical implications of population-specific genomic architectures remain incompletely defined. We conducted a prospective, multicenter study of 603 adults with newly diagnosed AML in Korea, integrating targeted sequencing of 83 recurrently mutated genes with comprehensive clinical annotation across treatment intensities, including allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT). For contextual comparison, genomic profiles were evaluated against the Beat AML cohort. The overall genomic landscape was broadly conserved, supporting shared core disease biology across populations. However, RUNX1::RUNX1T1, CEBPA, GATA2, KIT, and DDX41 mutations were more frequent in the Korean cohort, whereas FLT3 and NPM1 mutations were less common. These differences translated into a distinct distribution of European LeukemiaNet (ELN) 2022 risk categories, with implications for therapeutic stratification. Notably, most DDX41 alterations were germline (3.2%), highlighting the need for systematic germline evaluation with implications for genetic counseling and donor selection. Although unadjusted overall survival appeared longer in the Korean cohort, this difference was not significant after adjustment for key clinical variables. These findings indicate that population-specific genomic distributions reshape the clinical application of risk stratification and support population-aware precision medicine strategies in AML.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Mihee Kim, Ik-Chan Song, Jooheon Park, Changseon Lee, Mi Yeon Kim, Sang Kyun Sohn, Ho-Young Yhim, Yong Park, Inho Kim, Ho-Jin Shin, Seong Kyu Park, Sung-Hyun Kim, June-Won Cheong, Ho Sup Lee, Hyewon Lee, Sung Hwa Bae, Yunsuk Choi, Hong-Ghi Lee, Young Rok Do, Jae Joon Han, Min Kyoung Kim, Silvia Park, Byung-Sik Cho, Hee-Je Kim, Hyeoung-Joon Kim, Jae-Sook Ahn. 2026-09-08. Age- and sex-adjusted genomic differences between Korean and Beat AML cohorts.. https://doi.org/10.1182/bloodadvances.2026020609

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Effectiveness of high-dose versus standard-dose influenza vaccines against hospitalisation according to frailty risk: a prespecified analysis of the randomised trial DANFLU-2.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is a major risk factor for influenza-related complications and can influence vaccine effectiveness. We aimed to assess the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of high-dose (HD-IIV) versus standard-dose inactivated influenza vaccine (SD-IIV) in older adults aged 65 years or older according to frailty risk. METHODS: This study was a prespecified analysis of DANFLU-2, an open-label, individually randomised trial, conducted in Denmark during three consecutive influenza seasons (2022-23, 2023-24, and 2024-25). Adults aged 65 years or older were randomised (1:1) to the HD-IIV or SD-IIV group. The primary endpoint was hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia. Frailty was defined according to the validated Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS) based on ICD-10 codes within 10 years before randomisation. Participants were stratified into three HFRS categories, namely low (<5 points), intermediate (5-15 points), and high (>15 points) frailty risk. The rVE of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint was assessed across prespecified HFRS categories and treating HFRS as a continuous variable. Pearson's chi-square test was used to compare safety events across frailty risk groups and randomisation groups. FINDINGS: Among 332&#x2009;438 randomised participants (mean age 73&#xb7;7 years [SD 5&#xb7;8]; 161&#x2009;538 [48&#xb7;6%] were female), 276&#x2009;173 (83&#xb7;1%) had low frailty risk, 52&#x2009;395 (15&#xb7;8%) had intermediate frailty risk, and 3861 (1&#xb7;2%) had high frailty risk. The primary endpoint of hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia occurred in 1424 (0&#xb7;5%) of 276&#x2009;173 participants with low frailty risk, 761 (1&#xb7;5%) of 52&#x2009;395 with intermediate frailty risk, and 163 (4&#xb7;2%) of 3861 with high frailty risk (relative risk [RR] for intermediate vs low frailty risk 2&#xb7;8 [95% CI 2&#xb7;6-3&#xb7;1]; RR for high vs low frailty risk 8&#xb7;2 [7&#xb7;0-9&#xb7;6]). HFRS as a continuous variable significantly modified the effect of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint with higher rVE estimates with increasing HFRS (pinteraction=0&#xb7;020). The rVE was 0&#xb7;2% (95% CI -10&#xb7;8 to 10&#xb7;2) among those with low frailty risk, 13&#xb7;1% (-0&#xb7;4 to 24&#xb7;8) among those with intermediate frailty risk, and 19&#xb7;9% (-10&#xb7;3 to 42&#xb7;1) among those with high frailty risk. No significant interaction was observed when HFRS was assessed according to the prespecified categorical frailty groups (pinteraction=0&#xb7;17). The proportion of participants with at least one serious adverse event increased across frailty risk groups (13&#x2009;366 [4&#xb7;8%] of 275&#x2009;795 for low frailty risk, 5475 [10&#xb7;5%] of 52&#x2009;315 for intermediate frailty risk, and 777 [20&#xb7;2%] of 3850 for high frailty risk; p<0&#xb7;0001), with similar proportions of serious adverse events in the HD-IIV and SD-IIV groups for each frailty risk group. INTERPRETATION: Among adults aged 65 years or older in Denmark, frailty risk might modify the effects of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia, with higher rVE estimates with increasing frailty risk. These findings might support considering high-dose influenza vaccines for frail older adults. However, effect modification was not evident when frailty was assessed using prespecified categorical subgroups, and subgroup-specific estimates were imprecise, with 95% CIs crossing the null. These results should be considered exploratory, warranting further investigation. FUNDING: The DANFLU-2 trial was funded by Sanofi.

Journal Article