4.6 Article

SF3B1 mutations in patients with myelodysplastic syndromes: The mutation is stable during disease evolution

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF HEMATOLOGY
卷 89, 期 8, 页码 E109-E115

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ajh.23734

关键词

-

资金

  1. Ministry of Health and Welfare (Taiwan) [MOHW103-TD-B-111-04]
  2. Department of Medical Research, National Taiwan University Hospital [NTUH 102P06, UN 102-015]
  3. National Science Council (Taiwan) [NSC 100-2314-B002-057-MY3, NSC 100-2314-B-002-112-MY3, NSC 100-2628-B-002-003-MY3]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The SF3B1 mutation can be detected in patients with myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS), but the report regarding the association of this mutation with other genetic alterations and its stability during disease progression is limited. In this study, SF3B1 mutations were identified in 10% of total cohort of 479 MDS patients and 61.8% of 34 patients with refractory anemia with ring sideroblasts (RARS). SF3B1 mutations were closely associated with older age, higher platelet counts, lower lactate dehydrogenase levels, good-risk cytogenetics, and mutations of DNMT3A, but inversely related to ASXL1 mutations. Most SF3B1-mutated patients had concurrent other genetic alterations, including DNMT3A and RUNX1 mutations. There was no prognostic difference between patients with SF3B1 mutations and those without. Sequential studies in 417 samples from 142 patients demonstrated that all SF3B1-mutated patients retained the same mutations during disease evolution with the exception of two patients who lost the mutation after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, whereas none of the SF3B1-wild patients acquired a novel mutation during clinical follow-ups. In conclusion, the patients with SF3B1 mutations had distinct clinic-biologic features. SF3B1 mutations, accompanied with other genetic alterations, especially DNMT3A mutations, may play a role in the development of MDS, but have little role in disease progression. (C) 2014 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