4.6 Article

Presence of isocitrate dehydrogenase mutations may predict clinical response to hypomethylating agents in patients with acute myeloid leukemia

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF HEMATOLOGY
卷 90, 期 5, 页码 E77-E79

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ajh.23965

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Cancer Institute [CA 16056]
  2. Emadi Research Foundation Account at University of Maryland Greenebaum Cancer Center (UMGCC)
  3. Leonard S. LuVullo Endowment for Leukemia Research
  4. Nancy C. Cully Endowment for Leukemia Research
  5. Babcock Family Endowment
  6. Heidi Leukemia Research Fund, Buffalo, NY
  7. Roswell Park Alliance Foundation
  8. Louis M. Sklarow Memorial Fund

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Mutations in IDH1 and IDH2 occur in 15-20% of AML cases, resulting in the production of 2-hydroxyglutarate, which promotes aberrant hypermethylation of DNA in leukemic cells. Although these mutations have been shown to have prognostic implications for patients with AML, optimal treatment strategies have yet to be defined. We retrospectively identified forty-two patients with AML treated with DNA methyltransferase inhibitors (DNMTIs) decitabine (n=36) or azacitidine (n=6) and performed analysis of stored samples for the presence of IDH1 and IDH2 mutations. Of the forty-two samples analyzed, seven (16.7%) had IDH mutations. Thirteen patients (31%) achieved remission [(complete remission (CR)/complete remission with incomplete count recovery (CRi)/partial response (PR)] after treatment with a DNMTI, five of seven (71.4%) with IDH mutations and eight of thirty-five (22.9%) without IDH mutations (P=0.01). When adjusted for age at diagnosis, sex, bone marrow blast percentage and cytogenetic, the odds of achieving response after administration of a DNMTI among patients with an IDH mutation was 14.2 when compared to patients without an IDH mutation (95%CI: 1.3-150.4). IDH1 and IDH2 mutations may predict a favorable response to DNMTI in patients with AML. Am. J. Hematol. 90:E77-E79, 2015. (c) 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

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