4.7 Article

An intragenic ERG deletion is a marker of an oncogenic subtype of B-cell precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia with a favorable outcome despite frequent IKZF1 deletions

Journal

LEUKEMIA
Volume 28, Issue 1, Pages 70-77

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/leu.2013.277

Keywords

B-cell precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia; molecular diagnostics; ERG; IKZF1

Funding

  1. Laurette Fugain foundation
  2. EORTC Charitable Trust

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Oncogenic subtypes in childhood B-cell precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia (BCP-ALL) are used for risk stratification. However, a significant number of BCP-ALL patients are still genetically unassigned. Using array-comparative genomic hybridization in a selected BCP-ALL cohort, we characterized a recurrent V(D) J-mediated intragenic deletion of the ERG gene (ERG(del)). A breakpoint-specific PCR assay was designed and used to screen an independent non-selected cohort of 897 children aged 1-17 years treated for BCP-ALL in the EORTC-CLG 58951 trial. ERG(del) was found in 29/897 patients (3.2%) and was mutually exclusive of known classifying genetic lesions, suggesting that it characterized a distinct leukemia entity. ERG(del) was associated with higher age (median 7.0 vs 4.0 years, P = 0.004), aberrant CD2 expression (43.5% vs 3.7%, P<0.001) and frequent IKZF1 Delta 4-7 deletions (37.9% vs 5.3%, P<0.001). However, ERG(del) patients had a very good outcome, with an 8-year event-free survival (8-y EFS) and an 8-year overall survival of 86.4% and 95.6%, respectively, suggesting that the IKZF1 deletion had no impact on prognosis in this genetic subtype. Accordingly, within patients with an IKZF1 Delta 4-7 deletion, those with ERG(del) had a better outcome (8-y EFS: 85.7% vs 51.3%; hazard ratio: 0.16; 95% confidence interval: 0.02-1.20; P = 0.04). These findings have implications for further stratification including IKZF1 status.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available