4.7 Article

ALK-negative anaplastic large cell lymphoma is a genetically heterogeneous disease with widely disparate clinical outcomes

期刊

BLOOD
卷 124, 期 9, 页码 1473-1480

出版社

AMER SOC HEMATOLOGY
DOI: 10.1182/blood-2014-04-571091

关键词

-

资金

  1. Center for Individualized Medicine
  2. Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic (Rochester, MN)
  3. National Cancer Institute [R01 CA177734, P50 CA97274]
  4. Damon Runyon Cancer Research Foundation [CI-48-09]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-negative anaplastic large cell lymphoma (ALCL) is a CD30-positive T-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma that morphologically resembles ALK-positive ALCL but lacks chromosomal rearrangements of the ALK gene. The genetic and clinical heterogeneity of ALK-negative ALCL has not been delineated. We performed immunohistochemistry and fluorescence in situ hybridization on 73 ALK-negative ALCLs and 32 ALK-positive ALCLs and evaluated the associations among pathology, genetics, and clinical outcome. Chromosomal rearrangements of DUSP22 and TP63 were identified in 30% and 8% of ALK-negative ALCLs, respectively. These rearrangements were mutually exclusive and were absent in ALK-positive ALCLs. Five-year overall survival rates were 85% for ALK-positive ALCLs, 90% for DUSP22-rearranged ALCLs, 17% for TP63-rearranged ALCLs, and 42% for cases lacking all 3 genetic markers (P < .0001). Hazard ratios for death in these 4 groups after adjusting for International Prognostic Index and age were 1.0 (reference group), 0.58, 8.63, and 4.16, respectively (P = 7.10 x 10(-5)). These results were similar when restricted to patients receiving anthracycline-based chemotherapy, as well as to patients not receiving stem cell transplantation. Thus, ALK-negative ALCL is a genetically heterogeneous disease with widely disparate outcomes following standard therapy. DUSP22 and TP63 rearrangements may serve as predictive biomarkers to help guide patient management.

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