4.7 Article

p53 gene mutations are associated with poor survival in low and low-intermediate risk diffuse large B-cell lymphomas

期刊

ANNALS OF ONCOLOGY
卷 13, 期 7, 页码 1108-1115

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdf185

关键词

diffuse large B-cell lymphomas; p53; survival

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: p53 alterations have been associated with a poor prognosis in aggressive B-cell lymphoma. We investigated the clinical relevance of p53 status in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), focusing on patients who belong to lower risk groups of the international prognostic index and were uniformly treated. We aimed to determine whether this biological marker could identify among such patients those with a pejorative outcome who could benefit from a distinct therapeutic approach. Patients and methods: We studied 69 patients presenting with no, one (low-risk, n = 40) or two (low-intermediate risk, n = 29) risk factors treated with an anthracyclin-containing induction regimen. p53 exons 5-8 mutations were screened for using denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis and confirmed by direct sequencing. Immunohistochemical detection of p53 protein and of its downstream target p21 were also evaluated in 60 of 69 cases. Results: p53 mutations were detected in 16 of 69 (23%) lymphoma samples. The presence of a p53 gene mutation affected survival (P = 0.01), with a 6-year survival rate estimated to be 44% in mutated patients, compared with 79% in non-mutated ones. Using a stepwise Cox model, p53 mutation constituted the only parameter affecting survival (relative risk = 2.7, P = 0.03). A p53(+)/p21(-) immunohistochemical pattern (n = 15), suggestive of a disrupted p53 function, strongly correlated with p53 gene status and was associated with a lower 6-year survival rate when compared with a p53 or p53(+)/p21(+) phenotype (47% versus 74%, P = 0.05). Conclusions: p53 alterations constitute a pejorative biological indicator able to discriminate among clinically defined lower risk patients with DLBCL.

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