4.1 Article

Treatment outcome of children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia: the Tokyo Children's Cancer Study Group (TCCSG) Study L04-16

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HEMATOLOGY
卷 108, 期 1, 页码 98-108

出版社

SPRINGER JAPAN KK
DOI: 10.1007/s12185-018-2440-4

关键词

Acute lymphoblastic leukemia; Childhood leukemia; Clinical trial; Novel fusion genes

资金

  1. Children's Cancer Association of Japan
  2. Grant of the National Center for Child Health and Development [26-20]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The survival rate of children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) has increased to approximately 90% after substantial progress in risk-oriented treatment strategies. Between 2005 and 2013, the Tokyo Children's Cancer Study Group (TCCSG) conducted a risk-oriented, non-randomized study, L04-16. The principal aim of this study was to assemble background characteristics and treatment outcomes, and gather genetic information on leukemic cells under central diagnosis. This report outlines the background characteristics and treatment outcomes of 1033 children with ALL treated according to a TCCSG platform. The 5-year event-free and overall survival (OS) rates for all children were 78.1 +/- 1.3 and 89.6 +/- 1.0%, respectively. The OS rate was significantly higher in children with B-cell precursor (BCP)-ALL (91.9 +/- 1.0%, n = 916) than in those with T-ALL (71.9 +/- 4.3%, n = 117, p < 0.001). In univariate analysis for BCP-ALL, children aged 1-6 years (5y-OS: 94.2 +/- 1.0%), with an initial white blood cell count of < 20,000/mu L (94.0 +/- 1.0%), high hyperdiploidy (95.4 +/- 1.6%), ETV6-RUNX1 (97.4 +/- 1.2%) or TCF3-PBX1 (96.9 +/- 2.1%), and Day8NoBlasts (96.4 +/- 1.1%) had the best outcomes. Genetic investigation revealed two novel fusion genes within this cohort: ETV6-ZNF385A and ZNF362-TCF4. Our study highlighted the clinical aspects of genomic features of ALL in Japanese children. We provide fundamental information for the further molecular investigation of this disease.

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

4.1
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