4.7 Article

Hyperdiploidy with 58-66 chromosomes in childhood B-acute lymphoblastic leukemia is highly curable: 58951 CLG-EORTC results

期刊

BLOOD
卷 121, 期 13, 页码 2415-2423

出版社

AMER SOC HEMATOLOGY
DOI: 10.1182/blood-2012-06-437681

关键词

-

资金

  1. EORTC Charitable Trust Foundation
  2. Vlaamse Liga Tegen Kanker
  3. Belgian Federation Against Cancer (nonprofit organization)
  4. TeleVie
  5. Kinderkankerfonds, Belgium

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of our study was to analyze the factors contributing to heterogeneity of prognosis in patients with hyperdiploidy>50 chromosomes (HD>50), a group of B-cell precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia with favorable outcome. The 541 HD>50 patients registered prospectively in the 58951 European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Children's Leukemia Group (CLG) trial, identified by karyotype (446 patients) and by DNA index (DI) (490 patients), had a 6-year event-free survival (EFS) of 89.0% (standard error [SE] = 1.5%) and a 6-year overall survival (OS) of 95.9% (SE = 0.9%). The strongest prognostic factor was the modal number of chromosomes (MNC): the 6-year EFS of 51-53, 54-57, and 58-66 MNC groups were 80%, 89%, and 99%, respectively (P < .0001). Ploidy assessed by DI was also a favorable factor: the higher the DI, the better the outcome. The 6-year EFS of the 3 subgroups of DI < 1.16/>= 1.16-<1.24/>= 1.24 were 83%, 90%, and 95%, respectively (P = .009). All usual combinations of trisomies (chromosomes 4, 10, 17, 18) were significant favorable factors but had lower EFS when MNC was lower than 58. In multivariate analysis, MNC remained the strongest factor. Consequently, the best indicator for excellent outcome was ploidy assessed by karyotype because patients with 58-66 chromosomes stood every chance of being cured (OS of 100% at 6-year follow-up) with less-intensive therapy. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT00003728. Registered: http://www.eortc.org/, http://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT00003728.

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