4.7 Article

Influence of FLT3-Internal Tandem Duplication Allele Burden and White Blood Cell Count on the Outcome in Patients With Intermediate-Risk Karyotype Acute Myeloid Leukemia

期刊

CANCER
卷 118, 期 24, 页码 6110-6117

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/cncr.27683

关键词

acute myeloid leukemia; leukemia; chemotherapy; fms-like tyrosine kinase-3; FLT3 mutations; nucleophosmin-1; NPM1 mutations

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: In patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML), testing for fms-like tyrosine kinase-3 (FLT3)-internal tandem duplication (FLT3-ITD) and nucleophosmin-1 (NPM1) mutations can allow for further prognostic subclassification, but less is known about the effects of FLT3-ITD allele burden and presenting white blood cell count (WBC) within molecular subgroups. METHODS: The authors retrospectively assessed 206 adult patients who had AML with an intermediate-risk karyotype and who received treatment on a uniform induction and consolidation chemotherapy regimen. RESULTS: The presenting WBC was a prognostic factor for survival only in patients who had an FLT3-ITD mutation. On multivariate analysis, after correcting for age, WBC, secondary AML, and blast percentage, nucleophosmin-1 (NPM1)-mutated/FLT3-ITD-negative patients had superior overall survival compared with patients in the other molecular subgroups. Patients who had FLT3-ITD mutations had an inferior overall survival compared with patients who had NPM1 wild-type/FLT3-negative disease, and patients who had low or intermediate levels of the FLT-ITD of mutant allele had overall and disease-free survival similar to those in patients who had high-level mutations. CONCLUSIONS: NPM1 and FLT3-ITD status, age, WBC, and secondary AML were identified as important prognostic variables that can help to risk stratify patients with AML who have intermediate-risk cytogenetics. FLT3 allele burden had no significant influence on outcomes after correcting for other variables. Cancer 2012;118:6110-7. (C) 2012 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