4.7 Article

Prognostic significance of additional cytogenetic aberrations in 733 de novo pediatric 11q23/MLL-rearranged AML patients: results of an international study

Journal

BLOOD
Volume 117, Issue 26, Pages 7102-7111

Publisher

AMER SOC HEMATOLOGY
DOI: 10.1182/blood-2010-12-328302

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Rotterdam Oncology Research Foundation KOCR
  2. Parents' Foundation Giessen
  3. Swedish Childhood Cancer Foundation
  4. Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare, Japan

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We previously demonstrated that outcome of pediatric 11q23/MLL-rearranged AML depends on the translocation partner (TP). In this multicenter international study on 733 children with 11q23/MLL-rearranged AML, we further analyzed which additional cytogenetic aberrations (ACA) had prognostic significance. ACAs occurred in 344 (47%) of 733 and were associated with unfavorable outcome (5-year overall survival [OS] 47% vs 62%, P < .001). Trisomy 8, the most frequent specificACA(n = 130/344, 38%), independently predicted favorable outcome within the ACAs group (OS 61% vs 39%, P = .003; Cox model for OS hazard ratio (HR) 0.54, P = .03), on the basis of reduced relapse rate (26% vs 49%, P < .001). Trisomy 19 (n = 37/344, 11%) independently predicted poor prognosis in ACAs cases, which was partly caused by refractory disease (remission rate 74% vs 89%, P = .04; OS 24% vs 50%, P < .001; HR 1.77, P = .01). Structural ACAs had independent adverse prognostic value for event-free survival (HR 1.36, P = .01). Complex karyotype, defined as >= 3 abnormalities, was present in 26% (n = 192/733) and showed worse outcome than those without complex karyotype (OS 45% vs 59%, P = .003) in univariate analysis only. In conclusion, like TP, specific ACAs have independent prognostic significance in pediatric 11q23/MLL-rearranged AML, and the mechanism underlying these prognostic differences should be studied. (Blood. 2011;117(26):7102-7111)

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