4.6 Article

Additional lesions identified by genomic microarrays are associated with an inferior outcome in low-risk chronic lymphocytic leukaemia patients

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF HAEMATOLOGY
卷 -, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/bjh.18946

关键词

arrays; chronic lymphocytic leukaemia; genomic complexity; prognosis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We investigated the relevance of genomic microarrays (GM) in refining prognosis in newly diagnosed low-risk chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) patients. Additional lesions were detected by GM in 22.7% of patients compared to fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH). GM and FISH showed a concordance rate of 87.4%. The presence of additional lesions by GM was associated with worse outcomes.
We explored the relevance of genomic microarrays (GM) in the refinement of prognosis in newly diagnosed low-risk chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL) patients as defined by isolated del(13q) or no lesions by a standard 4 probe fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) analysis. Compared to FISH, additional lesions were detected by GM in 27 of the 119 patients (22.7%). The concordance rate between FISH and GM was 87.4%. Discordant results between cytogenetic banding analysis (CBA) and GM were observed in 45/119 cases (37.8%) and were mainly due to the intrinsic characteristics of each technique. The presence of additional lesions by GM was associated with age > 65 years (p = 0.047), advanced Binet stage (p = 0.001), CLL-IPI score (p < 0.001), a complex karyotype (p = 0.004) and a worse time-to-first treatment in multivariate analysis (p = 0.009). Additional lesions by GM were also significantly associated with a worse time-to-first treatment in the subset of patients with wild-type TP53 and mutated IGHV (p = 0.025). In CLL patients with low-risk features, the presence of additional lesions identified by GM helps to identify a subset of patients with a worse outcome that could be proposed for a risk-adapted follow-up and for early treatment including targeted agents within clinical trials.

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