4.7 Article

Clinical significance of CD56 expression in patients with acute promyelocytic leukemia treated with all-trans retinoic acid and anthracycline-based regimens

期刊

BLOOD
卷 117, 期 6, 页码 1799-1805

出版社

AMER SOC HEMATOLOGY
DOI: 10.1182/blood-2010-04-277434

关键词

-

资金

  1. Fundacion para la Investigacion Hospital Universitario La Fe-Ayudas Bancaja [2006/0137]
  2. Red Tematica de Investigacion Cooperativa en Cancer [RD06/0020/0031]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The expression of CD56 antigen in acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL) blasts has been associated with short remission duration and extramedullary relapse. We investigated the clinical significance of CD56 expression in a large series of patients with APL treated with all-trans retinoic acid and anthracycline-based regimens. Between 1996 and 2009, 651 APL patients with available data on CD56 expression were included in 3 subsequent trials (PETHEMA LPA96 and LPA99 and PETHEMA/HOVON LPA2005). Seventy-two patients (11%) were CD56(+) ( expression of CD56 in >= 20% leukemic promyelocytes). CD56(+) APL was significantly associated with high white blood cell counts; low albumin levels; BCR3 isoform; and the coexpression of CD2, CD34, CD7, HLA-DR, CD15, and CD117 antigens. For CD56(+) APL, the 5-year relapse rate was 22%, compared with a 10% relapse rate for CD56(+) APL (P = .006). In the multivariate analysis, CD56 expression retained the statistical significance together with the relapse-risk score. CD56(+) APLalso showed a greater risk of extramedullary relapse (P < .001). In summary, CD56 expression is associated with the coexpression of immaturity-associated and T-cell antigens and is an independent adverse prognostic factor for relapse in patients with APL treated with all-trans-retinoic acid plus idarubicin-derived regimens. This marker may be considered for implementing risk-adapted therapeutic strategies in APL. The LPA2005 trial is registered at http://www.clinicaltrials.govasNCT00408278. (Blood. 2011;117(6):1799-1805)

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