The complete response rate after the first course of induction therapy was significantly greater among adult patients with AML who had received IDA as part of induction therapy compared with those who had received HDD.

Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) with mutated RUNX1 (RUNX1mut) is considered to have an unfavorable prognosis. However, recent studies have reported comparable survival outcomes with wild-type RUNX1 (RUNX1wt). To assess the clinical outcomes of AML with and without RUNX1mut, we performed a prospective cohort study and systematic review and meta-analysis. The study enrolled 135 patients (27 with RUNX1mut; 108 with RUNX1wt). There were no significant differences in the median OS and RFS of the RUNX1mut and RUNX1wt groups (9.1 vs. 12.2 months; p = 0.268 and 7.8 vs. 14.6 months; p = 0.481, respectively). A subgroup analysis of de novo AML patients with intermediate-risk cytogenetics showed similar outcomes. Our meta-analysis pooled data from 23 studies and our study. The complete remission rate was significantly lower in the RUNX1mut group (pooled odds ratio: 0.42). The OS, RFS, and event-free survival rates also favored the RUNX1wt group (pooled risk ratios: 1.36, 1.37, and 1.37, respectively). A subgroup analysis of de novo AML patients with intermediate-risk cytogenetics demonstrated nearly identical OS and RFS outcomes. This study confirms that patients with AML and RUNX1mut had poor prognoses. Nonetheless, in de novo AML with intermediate-risk cytogenetics, the survival outcomes of both groups were comparable.

Given that the presence of antiphospholipid (aPL) antibodies has been proposed to be associated with thrombosis in newly diagnosed patients with lymphoma, we conducted a prospective cohort study on these patients. In all, 154 patients were enrolled. More than half were advanced-stage diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Approximately one-third (35.7%) of the patients had the presence of aPLs, with single-, double-, and triple-aPL positivities of 29.9%, 5.2%, and 0.6%, respectively. Of the 154 patients, 8 (5.19%) developed symptomatic thrombosis during follow-up. There were no significant differences in the incidences of thrombosis for the aPL-positive and aPL-negative groups (5.5% vs 5.1%; P = 1.000). In a multivariate analysis, patients with male sex and lymphoma stage IV were significant risk factors for aPL positivity, with odds ratio [OR] = 2.22 (95% CI: 1.11-4.45), P = .025, and OR: 2.34 (95% CI: 1.17-4.67), P = .016, respectively. An aPL predictive score of ≥−1 was predictive of aPL positivity, with a sensitivity of 83.6% and specificity of 34.3%.