4.6 Article

Chromosome 14q32 translocations involving the immunoglobulin heavy chain locus in chronic lymphocytic leukaemia identify a disease subset with poor prognosis

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF HAEMATOLOGY
卷 142, 期 4, 页码 529-537

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2141.2008.07227.x

关键词

chronic lymphocytic leukaemia; cytogenetics; prognostic factors; IgH; FISH

资金

  1. Associazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul Cancro Funding Source: Custom

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Immunophenotypic studies, fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) and conventional karyotyping were used to define the clinicobiological significance of 14q32 translocations involving the immunoglobulin gene locus (14q32/IGH) in 252 chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL) patients. The following regions were studied: 13q14, centromere 12, 6q21; 11q22/ATM; 17p13/TP53, 14q32/IGH. Patients were classified as group 1 (favourable, i.e. 13q-single or normal), group 2 (intermediate risk, i.e. +12, 6q-, 1-2 anomalies), group 3 (unfavourable, i.e. 17p-, 11q-, complex karyotype), or group 4 (14q32/IGH translocation). Endpoints were treatment-free survival (TFS) and overall survival (OS). One hundred and ten patients were included in group 1, 99 in group 2, 25 in group 3 and 18 in group 4. 14q32/IGH translocation partners were identified in eight cases (BCL2 in five cases, BCL11A, CCND3 and CDK6 in one case each). group 4 showed shorter TFS versus groups 2 and 1 (25% patients treated at 2 months vs. 12 (P = 0.02) and 20 months (P = 0.002), respectively) and shorter OS (25% patients dead at 18 months versus 50 (P = 0.0003) and > 60 months (P < 0.0001) respectively. The 14q32/IGH translocation maintained prognostic significance at multivariate analysis on TFS (P = 0.025) and OS (P < 0.001), along with advanced stage and CD38(+). These findings show that the 14q32/IGH translocation predicts for an unfavourable outcome in CLL and that this cytogenetic subset might be included as a separate entity in a hierarchical cytogenetic classification of CLL.

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

4.6
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