4.6 Article

In vitro drug resistance and prognostic impact of p16INK4A/p15INK4B deletions in childhood T-cell acute lymphoblastic leukaemia

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF HAEMATOLOGY
Volume 112, Issue 3, Pages 680-690

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2141.2001.02586.x

Keywords

p16/INK4a; p15/INK4b; p19ARF; gene deletions; T cell; childhood acute lymphoblastic leukaemia; cellular drug resistance

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

p16 gene deletions are present in about 70% of primary paediatric T-cell acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (T-ALL) and 20% of common/precursor B-cell ALL cases. It is not clear what the impact of the frequent p16 deletions is within the subgroup of T-lineage ALL. We studied the relationship between p16/p19(ARF) deletions, using fluorescence in situ hybridization. and in vitro drug resistance and prognosis in childhood T-ALL at diagnosis. The cellular drug resistance was measured with the methyl thiazol tetrazoliumbromide assay using a panel of drugs and the thymidylate synthase inhibition assay for methotrexate. There was a complete overlap of individual LC50 values of p16 gene homozygously deleted and p16 germ-line cases for most of the nine classes of drugs tested. The only difference was for dexamethasone: the p16-deleted group was more sensitive than the germ-line p16 group (P = 0.030). The homozygously deleted p16 T-ALL patients (n = 34) treated with the modern multiagent chemotherapy schemes of the Dutch Childhood Leukaemia Study Group ALL-VII/-VIII or Co-operative ALL-92/-97 protocols have a significantly lower 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) than germ-line p16 T-ALL (n = 25) (65.1 +/- 9.1% vs. 95.5 +/- 4.4%, P-log (rank) = 0.021). Hence, this study identifies a subpopulation of primary childhood T-ALL that appears to have an extremely high DFS, However, the observed differences in outcome do not seem to be related to intrinsic resistance for the tested drugs.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available