4.6 Article

Outcome of TCF3-PBX1 positive pediatric acute lymphoblastic leukemia patients in Japan: a collaborative study of Japan Association of Childhood Leukemia Study (JACLS) and Children's Cancer and Leukemia Study Group (CCLSG)

期刊

CANCER MEDICINE
卷 3, 期 3, 页码 623-631

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/cam4.221

关键词

IKZF1 deletion; pediatric acute lymphoblastic leukemia; TCF3-PBX1

类别

资金

  1. Japanese Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare
  2. Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology
  3. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [23591539] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study reviewed the clinical characteristics of 112 pediatric B-cell precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia (BCP-ALL) patients with TCF3-PBX1 fusion treated according to the Japan Association of Childhood Leukemia Study (JACLS) ALL02 protocol (n = 82) and Children's Cancer and Leukemia Study Group (CCLSG) ALL 2004 protocol (n = 30). The 3-year event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS) rates were 85.4 +/- 3.9% and 89.0 +/- 3.5% in JACLS cohort, and the 5-year EFS and OS were 82.8 +/- 7.0% and 86.3 +/- 6.4% in CCLSG cohort, respectively, which are comparable to those reported in western countries. Conventional prognostic factors such as age at onset, initial white blood cell count, and National Cancer Institute risk have also no impact on OS in both cohorts. Surprisingly, the pattern of relapse in JACLS cohort, 9 of 82 patients, was unique: eight of nine patients relapsed during the maintenance phase and one patient had primary induction failure. However, bone marrow status and assessment of minimal residual disease on days 15 and 33 did not identify those patients. Interestingly, the two patients with IKZF1 deletion eventually relapsed in JACLS cohort, as did one patient in CCLSG cohort. International collaborative study of larger cohort is warranted to clarify the impact of the IKZF1 deletion on the poor outcome of TCF3-PBX1 positive BCP-ALL.

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

4.6
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