4.7 Article

Better prognosis for patients with del(7q) than for patients with monosomy 7 in myelodysplastic syndrome

期刊

CANCER
卷 118, 期 1, 页码 127-133

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/cncr.26279

关键词

myelodysplastic syndrome; monosomy 7; cytogenetic; del(7q); survival

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: Abnormalities involving chromosome 7 are frequent in myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) and suggest a poor prognosis. METHODS: The authors examined the hypothesis that the clinical features and survival associated with isolated deletion (del) of part of the long arm of chromosome 7 (7q) in MDS are different from those associated with isolated monosomy 7 (complete loss of chromosome 7). In total, 133 patients with a diagnosis of de novo MDS (according to the World Health Organization [WHO] classification) and chromosome 7 abnormalities in the Spanish MDS Registry were evaluated retrospectively. Four karyotypic groups were identified: isolated del(7q) (n 29), isolated monosomy 7 (n 27), del(7q) with additional abnormalities (n 24), and monosomy 7 with additional abnormalities (n 53). RESULTS: Isolated del(7q) was more frequent in patients with less advanced MDS according to the WHO classification or the International Prognostic Scoring System. In addition, isolated del(7q) was associated with fewer blasts in bone marrow than other cytogenetics groups. Survival was significantly superior in patients with isolated del(7) than in those with isolated monosomy 7, del(7q) with additional abnormalities, or monosomy 7 with additional abnormalities. On multivariate analysis, age, the percentage of blasts in bone marrow, and other chromosome 7 abnormalities apart from isolated del(7q) were identified as independent risk factors for survival. CONCLUSIONS: The current results demonstrated that patients who had MDS with isolated del(7q) had some distinct clinical-pathologic characteristics as well as better survival than patients who had MDS with isolated monosomy 7. Cancer 2012; 118: 127-33. (C) 2011 American Cancer Society.

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