ArticleHaematologica2011
Array-based genomic screening at diagnosis and during follow-up in chronic lymphocytic leukemia.
Article in Haematologica, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 49 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
49 citing papers in PubMed, 100 citations in OpenAlex.
- ATM aberrations in chronic lymphocytic leukemia: del(11q) rather than ATM mutations is an adverse-prognostic biomarker.Leukemia · 2025Article
- Review
- From regulation to deregulation of p53 in hematologic malignancies: implications for diagnosis, prognosis and therapy.Biomarker research · 2024Review
- MicroRNAs: Potential prognostic and theranostic biomarkers in chronic lymphocytic leukemia.EJHaem · 2024Review
- Article
- A Peculiar CLL Case with Complex Chromosome 6 Rearrangements and Refinement of All Breakpoints at the Gene Level by Genomic Array: A Case Report.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Recent revelations and future directions using single-cell technologies in chronic lymphocytic leukemia.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Review
- Clonal evolution in chronic lymphocytic leukemia is associated with an unmutated IGHV status and frequently leads to a combination of loss of TP53 and TP53 mutation.Molecular biology reports · 2022Article
- Whole-genome sequencing of chronic lymphocytic leukemia identifies subgroups with distinct biological and clinical features.Nature genetics · 2022Article
- Review
- Cytogenetics in Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia: ERIC Perspectives and Recommendations.HemaSphere · 2022Article
- Chromosome banding analysis and genomic microarrays are both useful but not equivalent methods for genomic complexity risk stratification in chronic lymphocytic leukemia patients.Haematologica · 2022Article
- From Descriptive to Functional Genomics of Leukemias Focusing on Genome Engineering Techniques.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Review
- Biclonal lymphoproliferative disorders: another association with NOTCH1-mutated chronic lymphocytic leukaemias.Irish journal of medical science · 2021Article
- Biological significance of monoallelic and biallelic BIRC3 loss in del(11q) chronic lymphocytic leukemia progression.Blood cancer journal · 2021Article
- Immunological and genetic kinetics from diagnosis to clinical progression in chronic lymphocytic leukemia.Biomarker research · 2021Article
- Dissecting the role of TP53 alterations in del(11q) chronic lymphocytic leukemia.Clinical and translational medicine · 2021Article
- Genomic arrays identify high-risk chronic lymphocytic leukemia with genomic complexity: a multi-center study.Haematologica · 2021Article
- CRISPR/Cas9-generated models uncover therapeutic vulnerabilities of del(11q) CLL cells to dual BCR and PARP inhibition.Leukemia · 2020Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHigh-resolution genomic microarrays enable simultaneous detection of copy-number aberrations such as the known recurrent aberrations in chronic lymphocytic leukemia [del(11q), del(13q), del(17p) and trisomy 12], and copy-number neutral loss of heterozygosity. Moreover, comparison of genomic profiles from sequential patients' samples allows detection of clonal evolution. DESIGN AND
methodsWe screened samples from 369 patients with newly diagnosed chronic lymphocytic leukemia from a population-based cohort using 250K single nucleotide polymorphism-arrays. Clonal evolution was evaluated in 59 follow-up samples obtained after 5-9 years.
resultsAt diagnosis, copy-number aberrations were identified in 90% of patients; 70% carried known recurrent alterations, including del(13q) (55%), trisomy 12 (10.5%), del(11q) (10%), and del(17p) (4%). Additional recurrent aberrations were detected on chromosomes 2 (1.9%), 4 (1.4%), 8 (1.6%) and 14 (1.6%). Thirteen patients (3.5%) displayed recurrent copy-number neutral loss of heterozygosity on 13q, of whom 11 had concurrent homozygous del(13q). Genomic complexity and large 13q deletions correlated with inferior outcome, while the former was linked to poor-prognostic aberrations. In the follow-up study, clonal evolution developed in 8/24 (33%) patients with unmutated IGHV, and in 4/25 (16%) IGHV-mutated and treated patients. In contrast, untreated patients with mutated IGHV (n=10) did not acquire additional aberrations. The most common secondary event, del(13q), was detected in 6/12 (50%) of all patients with acquired alterations. Interestingly, aberrations on, for example, chromosome 6q, 8p, 9p and 10q developed exclusively in patients with unmutated IGHV.
conclusionsWhole-genome screening revealed a high frequency of genomic aberrations in newly diagnosed chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Clonal evolution was associated with other markers of aggressive disease and commonly included the known recurrent aberrations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.