4.7 Article

Clinical significance of TP53, BIRC3, ATM and MAPK-ERK genes in chronic lymphocytic leukaemia: data from the randomised UK LRF CLL4 trial

期刊

LEUKEMIA
卷 34, 期 7, 页码 1760-1774

出版社

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1038/s41375-020-0723-2

关键词

-

资金

  1. Bloodwise
  2. Arbib Charitable Fund
  3. Bloodwise [12036, 11052]
  4. Kay Kendall Leukaemia Fund [873]
  5. Cancer Research UK [C2750/A23669, C34999/A18087, ECMC C24563/A15581]
  6. Oxford Partnership Comprehensive Biomedical Research Centre
  7. Department of Health's National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre funding scheme

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Despite advances in chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL) treatment, globally chemotherapy remains a central treatment modality, with chemotherapy trials representing an invaluable resource to explore disease-related/genetic features contributing to long-term outcomes. In 499 LRF CLL4 cases, a trial with >12 years follow-up, we employed targeted resequencing of 22 genes, identifying 623 mutations. After background mutation rate correction, 11/22 genes were recurrently mutated at frequencies between 3.6% (NFKBIE) and 24% (SF3B1). Mutations beyond Sanger resolution (<12% VAF) were observed in all genes, with KRAS mutations principally composed of these low VAF variants. Firstly, employing orthogonal approaches to confirm TP53 mutations, we assessed the clinical impact of TP53 clonal architecture. Whilst >= 12% VAF TP53mut cases were associated with reduced PFS and OS, we could not demonstrate a difference between TP53 mutations and either wild type or >= 12% VAF TP53mut cases. Secondly, we identified biallelic BIRC3 lesions (mutation and deletion) as an independent marker of inferior PFS and OS. Finally, we observed that mutated MAPK-ERK genes were independent markers of poor OS in multivariate survival analysis. In conclusion, our study supports using targeted resequencing of expanded gene panels to elucidate the prognostic impact of gene mutations.

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