4.7 Article

Validation and refinement of the revised 2017 European LeukemiaNet genetic risk stratification of acute myeloid leukemia

期刊

LEUKEMIA
卷 34, 期 12, 页码 3161-3172

出版社

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1038/s41375-020-0806-0

关键词

-

资金

  1. European Hematology Association (EHA)
  2. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG Collaborative Research Centre) [SFB 1243]
  3. Wilhelm-Sander-Stiftung [2013.086.1, 2013.086.2]
  4. Helmholtz Zentrum Munchen [G-509200-004]
  5. Leukemia & Blood Cancer New Zealand
  6. family of Marijanna Kumerich
  7. Projekt DEAL
  8. European Hematology Association [RG11, TRTH1, CRTH1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The revised 2017 European LeukemiaNet (ELN) recommendations for genetic risk stratification of acute myeloid leukemia have been widely adopted, but have not yet been validated in large cohorts of AML patients. We studied 1116 newly diagnosed AML patients (age range, 18-86 years) who had received induction chemotherapy. Among 771 patients not selected by genetics, the ELN-2017 classification re-assigned 26.5% of patients into a more favorable or, more commonly, a more adverse-risk group compared with the ELN-2010 recommendations. Forty percent of the cohort, and 51% of patients >= 60 years, were classified as adverse-risk by ELN-2017. In 599 patients <60 years, estimated 5-year overall survival (OS) was 64% for ELN-2017 favorable, 42% for intermediate-risk and 20% for adverse-risk patients. Among 517 patients aged >= 60 years, corresponding 5-year OS rates were 37, 16, and 6%. Patients with biallelic CEBPA mutations or inv(16) had particularly favorable outcomes, while patients with mutated TP53 and a complex karyotype had especially poor prognosis. DNMT3A mutations associated with inferior OS within each ELN-2017 risk group. Our results validate the prognostic significance of the revised ELN-2017 risk classification in AML patients receiving induction chemotherapy across a broad age range. Further refinement of the ELN-2017 risk classification is possible.

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