4.7 Article

Drug resistance factors in acute myeloid leukemia: a comparative analysis

期刊

LEUKEMIA
卷 14, 期 1, 页码 68-76

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/sj.leu.2401634

关键词

multidrug resistance; P-glycoprotein; MRP1; LRP; bcl-2; acute myeloid leukemia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To compare the clinical relevance of drug resistance factors in de novo acute myeloid leukemia (AML), we determined their relationship to both response to induction chemotherapy and survival of the patients in univariate as well as multivariate analyses. The drug resistance factors immunocytochemically studied in 111 patients at the time of diagnosis included the lung resistance protein (LRP), P-glycoprotein (P-gp), multidrug resistance protein (MRP1) and bcl-2. In the univariate analyses, age (P = 0.005), karyotype (P = 0.03), LRP (P = 0.003), P-gp (P = 0.02) and bcl-2 (P = 0.03) predicted for response to induction chemotherapy, whereas MRP1 had no predictive value. Age (P = 0,05), karyotype (P = 0.05) and LRP (P = 0.03) retained their predictive value in the multivariate logistic regression analyses. With regard to overall survival, age (P = 0.008), karyotype (P = 0.006), LRP (P = 0.001) and P-gp (P = 0.01) were of prognostic value in the univariate Cox regression analyses but only age (P = 0.01), karyotype (P = 0.02) and LRP (P = 0.01) retained their prognostic significance in the multivariate analyses. A risk score based on the number of independent prognostic factors allowed division of patients into four groups with different outcome. In these groups, the complete remission rates were 93%, 75%, 47% and 33%, respectively, and median overall survival was 2.4, 1.2, 0.6 and 0.2 years, respectively. Thus, several drug resistance factors did predict outcome in the univariate analyses but LRP was the only drug resistance factor with independent predictive and prognostic significance. The proposed risk score might be useful for risk-adapted treatment in the future.

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