4.7 Article

Molecular analysis of t(15;17) genomic breakpoints in secondary acute promyelocytic leukemia arising after treatment of multiple sclerosis

期刊

BLOOD
卷 112, 期 8, 页码 3383-3390

出版社

AMER SOC HEMATOLOGY
DOI: 10.1182/blood-2007-10-115600

关键词

-

资金

  1. Associazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul Cancro
  2. Italian Ministry of Health (Progetto Integrato Oncologia)
  3. Leukemia Research Fund of Great Britain
  4. National Institutes of Health [R01CA077683, GM33944]
  5. Polish Ministry of Science and Education [PBZ KBN 107 P04 2004]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Therapy-related acute promyelocytic leukemia (t-APL) with t(15;17) translocation is a well-recognized complication of cancer treatment with agents targeting topoisomerase II. However, cases are emerging after mitoxantrone therapy for multiple sclerosis (MS). Analysis of 12 cases of mitoxantrone-related t-APL in MS patients revealed an altered distribution of chromosome 15 breakpoints versus de novo APL, biased toward disruption within PML intron 6 (11 of 12, 92% vs 622 of 1022, 61%: P = .035). Despite this intron spanning approximately 1 kb, breakpoints in 5 mitoxantrone-treated patients fell within an 8-bp region (1482- 9) corresponding to the hotspot previously reported in t-APL, complicating mitoxantrone-containing breast cancer therapy. Another shared breakpoint was identified within the approximately 17-kb RARA intron 2 involving 2 t-APL cases arising after mitoxantrone treatment for MS and breast cancer, respectively. Analysis of PML and RARA genomic breakpoints in functional assays in 4 cases, including the shared RARA intron 2 breakpoint at 14 446-49, confirmed each to be preferential sites of topoisomerase II alpha-mediated DNA cleavage in the presence of mitoxantrone. This study further supports the presence of preferential sites of DNA damage induced by mitoxantrone in PML and RARA genes that may underlie the propensity to develop this subtype of leukemia after exposure to this agent.

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