4.2 Article

The long-term clinical implications of clonal chromosomal abnormalities in newly diagnosed chronic phase chronic myeloid leukemia patients treated with imatinib mesylate

期刊

CANCER GENETICS
卷 205, 期 11, 页码 563-571

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.cancergen.2012.09.003

关键词

Chromosomal abnormality; chronic myeloid leukemia; imatinib mesylate

资金

  1. National R&D Program for Cancer Control, Ministry of Health & Welfare, Republic of Korea [1020400]
  2. Korea Health Promotion Institute [1020400] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term clinical significance of an additional chromosomal abnormality (ACA), variant Philadelphia chromosome (vPh) at diagnosis, and newly developed other chromosomal abnormalities (OCA) in patients with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) on imatinib (IM) therapy. Sequential cytogenetic data from 281 consecutive new chronic phase CML patients were analyzed. With a median follow-up of 78.6 months, the 22 patients with vPh (P = 0.034) or ACA (P = 0.034) at diagnosis had more events of IM failure than did the patients with a standard Ph. The 5-year overall survival (OS), event-free survival (EFS), and failure-free survival (FFS) rates for patients with vPh at diagnosis were 77.8%, 75.0%, and 53.3%, respectively; for patients with ACA at diagnosis, 100%, 66.3%, and 52.1%, respectively; and for patients with a standard Ph, 96.0%, 91.3%, and 83.7%, respectively. During IM therapy, eight patients developed an OCA, which had no impact on outcomes as a time-dependent covariate in our Cox proportional hazards regression models. This study showed that vPh was associated with poor OS and FFS and that ACA had adverse effects on EFS and FFS. In addition, no OCA, except monosomy 7, had any prognostic impact, suggesting that the development of OCA may not require a change in treatment strategy.

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

4.2
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