4.7 Article

Demographic, clinical, and outcome features of children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia and CRLF2 deregulation: results from the MRC ALL97 clinical trial

期刊

BLOOD
卷 117, 期 7, 页码 2129-2136

出版社

AMER SOC HEMATOLOGY
DOI: 10.1182/blood-2010-07-297135

关键词

-

资金

  1. Leukemia & Lymphoma Research
  2. United Kingdom Medical Research Council
  3. Medical Research Council [MC_U137686856, G0300130] Funding Source: researchfish
  4. MRC [MC_U137686856, G0300130] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Deregulated expression of CRLF2(CRLF2-d) arises via its juxtaposition to the IGH@ enhancer or P2RY8 promoter. Among 865 BCP-ALL children treated on MRC ALL97, 52 (6%) had CRLF2-d, but it was more prevalent among Down syndrome patients (54%). P2RY8-CRLF2 (n = 43) was more frequent than IGH@-CRLF2 (n = 9). CRLF2-d was not associated with age, sex, or white cell count, but IGH@-CRLF2 patients were older than P2RY8-CRLF2 patients (median 8 vs 4 years, P = .0017). Patients with CRLF2-d were more likely to present with enlarged livers and spleens (38% vs 18%, P < .001). CRLF2-d was not seen in conjunction with established chromosomal translocations but 6 (12%) cases had high hyperdiploidy, and 5 (10%) had iAMP21. Univariate analysis suggested that CRLF2-d was associated with an inferior outcome: (event-free survival [EFS] hazard ratio 2.27 [95% confidence interval 1.48-3.47], P < .001; OS 3.69 [2.34-5.84], P < .001). However, multivariate analysis indicated that its effect was mediated by other risk factors such as cytogenetics and DS status (EFS 1.45 [0.88-2.39], P = .140; OS 1.90 [1.08-3.36], P = .027). Although the outcome of IGH@-CRLF2 patients appeared inferior compared with P2RY8-CRLF2 patients, the result was not significant (EFS 2.69 [1.15-6.31], P = .023; OS 2.86 [1.15-6.79], P = .021). Therefore, we concluded that patients with CRLF2-d should be classified into the intermediate cytogenetic risk group. (Blood. 2011; 117(7): 2129-2136)

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