4.7 Article

The importance of relative mutant level for evaluating impact on outcome of KIT, FLT3 and CBL mutations in core-binding factor acute myeloid leukemia

期刊

LEUKEMIA
卷 27, 期 9, 页码 1891-1901

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/leu.2013.186

关键词

acute myeloid leukemia; core-binding factor; KIT; FLT3; RAS; CBL

资金

  1. Leukaemia and Lymphoma Research, UK
  2. UK Medical Research Council
  3. Department of Health's NIHR Biomedical Research Centre's funding scheme
  4. National Institute for Health Research [NF-SI-0507-10370] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Several different mutations collaborate with the fusion proteins in core-binding factor acute myeloid leukemia (CBF-AML) to induce leukemogenesis, but their prognostic significance remains unclear. We screened 354 predominantly younger (<60 years) adults with t(8;21) (n = 199) or inv(16) (n = 155) entered into UK MRC trials for KIT, FLT3 tyrosine kinase domain (FLT3(TKD)), N-RAS, K-RAS and c-CBL mutations and FLT3 internal tandem duplications (FLT3(ITD)) and assessed the impact of relative mutant level on outcome. Overall, 28% had KIT, 6% FLT3(ITD), 10% FLT3(TKD), 27% RAS and 6% CBL mutations. Mutant levels for all genes/loci were highly variable. KIT mutations were associated with a higher cumulative incidence of relapse but in multivariate analysis this was only significant for cases with a higher mutant level of 25% or greater (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.01-1.52, P = 0.04). Similarly, only FLT3(ITD-HIGH) was a significant adverse factor for overall survival (OS; CI = 1.27-5.39, P = 0.004). Conversely, FLT3(TKD-HIGH) and CBLHIGH were both favorable factors for OS (CI = 0.31-0.89, P = 0.01 and CI = 0.05-0.85, P = 0.02, respectively). KIT mutations were frequently lost at relapse, which is relevant to minimal residual disease detection and the clinical use of KIT inhibitors. These results indicate that relative mutant level should be taken into account when evaluating the impact of mutations in CBF-AML.

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