4.7 Article

GAS6 expression identifies high-risk adult AML patients: potential implications for therapy

期刊

LEUKEMIA
卷 28, 期 6, 页码 1252-1258

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/leu.2013.371

关键词

GAS6; acute myeloid leukemia; prognosis

资金

  1. National Cancer Institute [CA101140, CA114725, CA140158, CA31946, CA33601, CA16058, CA77658, CA129657]
  2. Coleman Leukemia Research Foundation
  3. Deutsche Krebshilfe-Dr Mildred Scheel Cancer Foundation
  4. Pelotonia Fellowship Program
  5. Conquer Cancer Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Emerging data demonstrate important roles for the TYRO3/AXL/MERTK receptor tyrosine kinase (TAM RTK) family in diverse cancers. We investigated the prognostic relevance of GAS6 expression, encoding the common TAM RTK ligand, in 270 adults (n=71 aged <60 years; n=199 aged >= 60 years) with de novo cytogenetically normal acute myeloid leukemia (CN-AML). Patients expressing GAS6 (GAS6+), especially those aged >= 60 years, more often failed to achieve a complete remission (CR). In all patients, GAS6+ patients had shorter disease-free (DFS) and overall (OS) survival than patients without GAS6 expression (GAS6-). After adjusting for other prognostic markers, GAS6+ predicted CR failure (P=0.02), shorter DFS (P=0.004) and OS (P=0.04). To gain further biological insights, we derived a GAS6-associated gene-expression signature (P<0.001) that in GAS6+ patients included overexpressed BAALC and MN1, known to confer adverse prognosis in CN-AML, and overexpressed CXCL12, encoding stromal cell-derived factor, and its receptor genes, chemokine (C-X-C motif) receptor 4 (CXCR4) and CXCR7. This study reports for the first time that GAS6 expression is an adverse prognostic marker in CN-AML. Although GAS6 decoy receptors are not yet available in the clinic for GAS6+ CN-AML therapy, potential alternative therapies targeting GAS6+-associated pathways, for example, CXCR4 antagonists, may be considered for GAS6+ patients to sensitize them to chemotherapy.

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

4.7
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