4.7 Article

Prognosis of inv(16)/t(16;16) acute myeloid leukemia (AML):: a survey of 110 cases from the French AML Intergroup

期刊

BLOOD
卷 102, 期 2, 页码 462-469

出版社

AMER SOC HEMATOLOGY
DOI: 10.1182/blood-2002-11-3527

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Acute myeloid leukemias (AMLs) carrying inv(16)/t(16;16) chromosomal abnormalities are associated with a good prognosis. However, studies of this AML subtype have been hampered by the few number of patients reported, frequently collectively considered with those with AML carrying the t(8;21) translocation. We performed a retrospective study in 110 patients with inv(16)/t(16;16)AML (median age, 34 years) prospectively enrolled in 6 trials conducted in France between 1987 and 1998, with the aim to investigate prognostic factors for complete remission (CR) achievement and outcome of CR patients in this AML subtype. CR rate was 93%. Bad-prognosis factors for CR achievement were higher white blood cell count (WBC) and lower platelet count (optimal cutpoints at 120 and 30 x 10(9)/L, respectively). At 3 years, estimated overall survival, disease-free survival (DFS), and cumulative incidence of relapse were 58%, 48%, and 42%, respectively. In multivariate analysis, (1) advanced age (optimal cutpoint, 35 years) was the only factor for shorter DFS and (2) advanced age and low platelet count were the 2 factors for shorter survival of CR patients. Outcome of CR patients (1) was not influenced by WBC and cytogenetic findings and (2) was similar among patients allocated to receive allogeneic transplantation, high-dose, or intermediate-dose cytarabine. Interestingly, advanced age was associated with a trend for more frequent additional chromosome abnormalities and predictive of higher cumulative incidence of relapse rather than death in first CR. These results markedly contrast with those reported in patients with t(8;21) AML in whom WBC, and not age, was the main high-risk factor for relapse, DFS, and survival. (C) 2003 by The American Society of Hematology.

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

4.7
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