4.1 Article

WT1 mutation in pediatric patients with acute myeloid leukemia: a report from the Japanese Childhood AML Cooperative Study Group

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HEMATOLOGY
卷 98, 期 4, 页码 437-445

出版社

SPRINGER JAPAN KK
DOI: 10.1007/s12185-013-1409-6

关键词

Acute myeloid leukemia; WT1 mutation; Cytogenetically normal acute myeloid leukemia; Prognosis

资金

  1. Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare of Japan
  2. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology of Japan
  3. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [22591172, 23591560, 25670482, 25461611, 23591537, 24591407, 24390268] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Mutations in Wilms tumor 1 (WT1) have been reported in 10-22 % of patients with cytogenetically normal acute myeloid leukemia (CN-AML), but the prognostic implications of these abnormalities have not been clarified in either adults or children. One hundred and fifty-seven pediatric AML patients were analyzed for WT1 mutations around hotspots at exons 7 and 9; however, amplification of the WT1 gene by the reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction was not completed in four cases (2.5 %). Of the 153 evaluable patients, 10 patients (6.5 %) had a mutation in WT1. The incidence of WT1 mutations was significantly higher in CN-AML than in others (15.2 vs. 4.5 %, respectively, P = 0.03). Of the 10 WT1-mutated cases, eight (80 %) had mutations in other genes, including FLT3-ITD in two cases, FLT3-D835 mutation in two, KIT mutation in three, MLL-PTD in three, NRAS mutation in one, and KRAS mutation in two (in some cases, more than one additional gene was mutated). The incidences of KIT and FLT3-D835 mutations were significantly higher in patients with than in those without WT1 mutation. No significant differences were observed in the 3-year overall survival and disease-free survival; however, the presence of WT1 mutation was related to a poor prognosis in patients with CN-AML, excluding those with FLT3-ITD and those younger than 3 years.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据