Literature DB >> 20385793

Refinement of cytogenetic classification in acute myeloid leukemia: determination of prognostic significance of rare recurring chromosomal abnormalities among 5876 younger adult patients treated in the United Kingdom Medical Research Council trials.

David Grimwade1, Robert K Hills, Anthony V Moorman, Helen Walker, Stephen Chatters, Anthony H Goldstone, Keith Wheatley, Christine J Harrison, Alan K Burnett.   

Abstract

Diagnostic karyotype provides the framework for risk-stratification schemes in acute myeloid leukemia (AML); however, the prognostic significance of many rare recurring cytogenetic abnormalities remains uncertain. We studied the outcomes of 5876 patients (16-59 years of age) who were classified into 54 cytogenetic subgroups and treated in the Medical Research Council trials. In multivariable analysis, t(15;17)(q22;q21), t(8;21)(q22;q22), and inv(16)(p13q22)/t(16;16)(p13;q22) were the only abnormalities found to predict a relatively favorable prognosis (P < .001). In patients with t(15;17) treated with extended all-trans retinoic acid and anthracycline-based chemotherapy, additional cytogenetic changes did not have an impact on prognosis. Similarly, additional abnormalities did not have a significant adverse effect in t(8;21) AML; whereas in patients with inv(16), the presence of additional changes, particularly +22, predicted a better outcome (P = .004). In multivariable analyses, various abnormalities predicted a significantly poorer outcome, namely abn(3q) (excluding t(3;5)(q25;q34)), inv(3)(q21q26)/t(3;3)(q21;q26), add(5q)/del(5q), -5, -7, add(7q)/del(7q), t(6;11)(q27;q23), t(10;11)(p11 approximately 13;q23), other t(11q23) (excluding t(9;11)(p21 approximately 22;q23) and t(11;19)(q23;p13)), t(9;22)(q34;q11), -17, and abn(17p). Patients lacking the aforementioned favorable or adverse aberrations but with 4 or more unrelated abnormalities also exhibited a significantly poorer prognosis (designated "complex" karyotype group). These data allow more reliable prediction of outcome for patients with rarer abnormalities and may facilitate the development of consensus in reporting of karyotypic information in clinical trials involving younger adults with AML. This study is registered at http://www.isrctn.org as ISRCTN55678797 and ISRCTN17161961.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20385793     DOI: 10.1182/blood-2009-11-254441

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Blood        ISSN: 0006-4971            Impact factor:   22.113


  572 in total

1.  Different impact of intermediate and unfavourable cytogenetics at the time of diagnosis on outcome of de novo AML after allo-SCT: a long-term retrospective analysis from a single institution.

Authors:  H Nahi; M Remberger; M Machaczka; J Ungerstedt; J Mattson; O Ringden; Katarina Le-Blanc; P Ljungman; H Hägglund
Journal:  Med Oncol       Date:  2012-01-11       Impact factor: 3.064

2.  New opportunities and new problems for acute myeloid leukemia treatment.

Authors:  Idoya Lahortiga; Jan Cools
Journal:  Haematologica       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 9.941

3.  Redefining transplant in acute leukemia.

Authors:  Rob Sellar; Anthony H Goldstone; Hillard M Lazarus
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Oncol       Date:  2011-12

4.  Preclinical and early clinical evaluation of the oral AKT inhibitor, MK-2206, for the treatment of acute myelogenous leukemia.

Authors:  Marina Y Konopleva; Roland B Walter; Stefan H Faderl; Elias J Jabbour; Zhihong Zeng; Gautam Borthakur; Xuelin Huang; Tapan M Kadia; Peter P Ruvolo; Jennie B Feliu; Hongbo Lu; Lakiesha Debose; Jan A Burger; Michael Andreeff; Wenbin Liu; Keith A Baggerly; Steven M Kornblau; L Austin Doyle; Elihu H Estey; Hagop M Kantarjian
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2014-02-28       Impact factor: 12.531

5.  Quizartinib-resistant FLT3-ITD acute myeloid leukemia cells are sensitive to the FLT3-Aurora kinase inhibitor CCT241736.

Authors:  Andrew S Moore; Amir Faisal; Grace W Y Mak; Farideh Miraki-Moud; Vassilios Bavetsias; Melanie Valenti; Gary Box; Albert Hallsworth; Alexis de Haven Brandon; Cristina P R Xavier; Randal Stronge; Andrew D J Pearson; Julian Blagg; Florence I Raynaud; Rajesh Chopra; Suzanne A Eccles; David C Taussig; Spiros Linardopoulos
Journal:  Blood Adv       Date:  2020-04-14

Review 6.  Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant for acute myeloid leukemia: Current state in 2013 and future directions.

Authors:  Abraham S Kanate; Marcelo C Pasquini; Parameswaran N Hari; Mehdi Hamadani
Journal:  World J Stem Cells       Date:  2014-04-26       Impact factor: 5.326

7.  A phase II study of the EGFR inhibitor gefitinib in patients with acute myeloid leukemia.

Authors:  Daniel J Deangelo; Donna Neuberg; Philip C Amrein; Jacob Berchuck; Martha Wadleigh; L Andres Sirulnik; Ilene Galinsky; Todd Golub; Kimberly Stegmaier; Richard M Stone
Journal:  Leuk Res       Date:  2013-11-05       Impact factor: 3.156

8.  Survival differences in childhood and young adult acute myeloid leukemia: A cross-national study using US and England data.

Authors:  Sherlly Xie; Md Jobayer Hossain
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol       Date:  2018-03-16       Impact factor: 2.984

9.  Level of RUNX1 activity is critical for leukemic predisposition but not for thrombocytopenia.

Authors:  Iléana Antony-Debré; Vladimir T Manchev; Nathalie Balayn; Dominique Bluteau; Cécile Tomowiak; Céline Legrand; Thierry Langlois; Olivia Bawa; Lucie Tosca; Gérard Tachdjian; Bruno Leheup; Najet Debili; Isabelle Plo; Jason A Mills; Deborah L French; Mitchell J Weiss; Eric Solary; Remi Favier; William Vainchenker; Hana Raslova
Journal:  Blood       Date:  2014-12-09       Impact factor: 22.113

10.  A comparison of patients with acute myeloid leukemia and high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome treated on versus off study.

Authors:  Sarah A Buckley; Mary-Elizabeth Percival; Megan Othus; Anna B Halpern; Emily M Huebner; Pamela S Becker; Carole Shaw; Mazyar Shadman; Roland B Walter; Elihu H Estey
Journal:  Leuk Lymphoma       Date:  2018-10-02
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.