4.6 Article

Prognostic heterogeneity of adult B-cell precursor acute lymphoblastic leukaemia patients with t(1;19)(q23;p13)/ TCF3-PBX1 treated with measurable residual disease-oriented protocols

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF HAEMATOLOGY
卷 196, 期 3, 页码 670-675

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/bjh.17844

关键词

acute lymphoblastic leukaemia; adults; t(1;19)(q23;p13)/TCF3-PBX1; prognosis; cytogenetic alterations

资金

  1. CERCA/Generalitat de Catalunya [SGR 2017 288]
  2. La Caixa
  3. Healthcare Alliance for Resourceful Medicine Offensive against Neoplasms (HARMONY)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The prognosis of adolescent and adult patients with t(1;19)(q23;p13) translocation remains controversial in MRD-oriented trials. Patients with TCF3-PBXI show similar MRD clearance and survival rates compared to other B-cell precursor ALL patients, but have a significantly higher cumulative incidence of relapse, especially in older patients with additional cytogenetic alterations. These patients may benefit from additional or intensified therapy such as immunotherapy followed by hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.
The prognosis of t(1;19)(q23;p13)/transcription factor 3-pre-B-cell leukaemia homeobox 1 (TCF3-PBXI) in adolescent and adult patients with acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL) treated with measurable residual disease (MRD)-oriented trials remains controversial. In the present study, we analysed the outcome of adolescent and adult patients with t(1;19)(q23;p13) enrolled in paediatric-inspired trials. The patients with TCF3-PBXI showed similar MRD clearance and did not have different survival compared with other B-cell precursor ALL patients. However, patients with TCF3-PBXI had a significantly higher cumulative incidence of relapse, especially among patients aged >= 35 years carrying additional cytogenetic alterations. These patients might benefit from additional/intensified therapy (e.g. immunotherapy in first complete remission with or without subsequent haematopoietic stem cell transplantation).

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