4.7 Article

FLT3 internal tandem duplication associates with adverse outcome and gene-and microRNA-expression signatures in patients 60 years of age or older with primary cytogenetically normal acute myeloid leukemia: a Cancer and Leukemia Group B study

期刊

BLOOD
卷 116, 期 18, 页码 3622-3626

出版社

AMER SOC HEMATOLOGY
DOI: 10.1182/blood-2010-05-283648

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Cancer Institute (Bethesda, MD) [CA140158, CA101140, CA114725, CA16058, CA77658, CA089341, CA129657]
  2. Coleman Leukemia Research Foundation
  3. Deutsche Krebshilfe-Dr Mildred Scheel Cancer Foundation
  4. CALGB [9665, 8461, 10201, 9720, 9420, 8923, 8525, 20202]
  5. National Cancer Institute [CA31946, CA33601]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The clinical impact of FLT3-internal tandem duplications (ITDs), an adverse prognostic marker in adults aged < 60 years with primary cytogenetically normal acute myeloid leukemia (CN-AML), requires further investigation in older patients. In CN-AML patients aged >= 60 years treated on Cancer and Leukemia Group B frontline trials, we found that FLT3-ITD remained associated with shorter disease-free survival (P < .001; hazard ratio = 2.10) and overall survival (P < .001; hazard ratio = 1.97) in multivariable analyses. This impact on shorter disease-free survival and overall survival was in patients aged 60-69 (P < .001, each) rather than in those aged >= 70 years. An FLT3-ITD-associated gene-expression signature revealed overexpression of FLT3, homeobox genes (MEIS1, PBX3, HOXB3), and immunotherapeutic targets (WT1, CD33) and underexpression of leukemia-associated (MLLT3, TAL1) and erythropoiesis-associated (GATA3, EPOR, ANK1, HEMGN) genes. An FLT3-ITD-associated microRNA-expression signature included overexpressed miR-155 and underexpressed miR-144 and miR-451. FLT3-ITD identifies older CN-AML patients with molecular high risk and is associated with gene-and microRNA-expression signatures that provide biologic insights for novel therapeutic approaches. (Blood. 2010;116(18):3622-3626)

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