ArticleLeukemia2001
Cytogenetic subgroups in acute myeloid leukemia differ in proliferative activity and response to GM-CSF.
Article in Leukemia, 2001. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Restoration of MYC-repressed targets mediates the negative effects of GM-CSF on RUNX1-ETO leukemogenicity.Leukemia · 2017Article
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The current study was undertaken to search for differences in the biology of cytogenetic subgroups in patients with de novo acute myeloid leukemia (AML). In addition, factors influencing the metabolism of cytosine arabinoside (araC) as the key agent of antileukemic activity were assessed. Bone marrow aspirates from 91 patients with newly diagnosed AML in whom karyotypes were successfully obtained were analyzed: (1) for spontaneous proliferative activity by 3H-thymidine (3H-TdR) incorporation; (2) proliferative response to GM-CSF by in vitro incubation of blasts for 48 h with or without GM-CSF (100 U/ml) followed by an additional 4-h exposure to 3H-TdR (0.5 microCi/ml); and (3) parameters of araC metabolism comprising 3H-araC uptake in vitro and the activities of polymerase alpha (poly alpha), deoxycytidine kinase (DCK) and deoxycytidine deaminase (DCD). According to the results of chromosome analyses four cytogenetic subgroups were discriminated: (I) normal karyotypes (n = 38); (II) favorable karyotypes [t8;21), t(15;17), inv(16)] (n = 16); (III) unfavorable karyotypes [inv (3), -5, 5q-, t(6;9), +8, t (9;11), complex abnormalities] (n = 20); (IV) karyotypes of unknown prognostic significance (n = 17). Proliferative activity of leukemic blasts was significantly higher in favorable karyotypes (group II) as compared to cases with unfavorable cytogenetics (group III) with median values and range for 3H-TdR uptake in group II of 2.48 pmol/10(5) cells (0.28-25.8) and in group III of 0.51 pmol/10(5) cells (0.04-7.6) (P = 0.0096). The respective values in group I and group IV were 0.7pmol/10(5) cells (0.0-6.7) and 0.98 pmol/10(5) cells (0.0-4.0), respectively. Inversely, response to GM-CSF, as defined by an increase in 3H-TdR incorporation >1.5- fold over control values after 48h of GM-CSF exposure, was significantly lower for patients with a favorable karyotype (group II) as compared to group I (P = 0.04) and group III (P = 0.013). No significant differences between karyotype groups I, II, III and IV were found for 3H-araC incorporation, nor for the activities of poly alpha, DCK and DCD. These data demonstrate differences in the biology of cytogenetic subgroups in AML which may partly explain the well established differences in clinical outcome.
Indexed as
Identifiers
11237060What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.