ArticleBlood cancer journal2015
Prognostic signature and clonality pattern of recurrently mutated genes in inactive chronic lymphocytic leukemia.
Article in Blood cancer journal, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prognostic significance of in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia: A meta-analysis.Annals of hematology · 2025Pooled it
- Review
- NOTCH1 Signalling: A key pathway for the development of high-risk chronic lymphocytic leukaemia.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Review
- Increased serum levels of Galectin-9 in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia.Oncology letters · 2019Article
- Highly similar genomic landscapes in monoclonal B-cell lymphocytosis and ultra-stable chronic lymphocytic leukemia with low frequency of driver mutations.Haematologica · 2018Article
- CD38 is methylated in prostate cancer and regulates extracellular NADCancer & metabolism · 2018Article
- Article
- MDM2/X inhibitors under clinical evaluation: perspectives for the management of hematological malignancies and pediatric cancer.Journal of hematology & oncology · 2017Review
- Prognostic Factors for Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia.Current hematologic malignancy reports · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
An increasing numbers of patients are being diagnosed with asymptomatic early-stage chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), with no treatment indication at baseline. We applied a high-throughput deep-targeted analysis, especially designed for covering widely TP53 and ATM genes, in 180 patients with inactive disease at diagnosis, to test the independent prognostic value of CLL somatic recurrent mutations. We found that 40/180 patients harbored at least one acquired variant with ATM (n=17, 9.4%), NOTCH1 (n=14, 7.7%), TP53 (n=14, 7.7%) and SF3B1 (n=10, 5.5%) as most prevalent mutated genes. Harboring one 'sub-Sanger' TP53 mutation granted an independent 3.5-fold increase of probability of needing treatment. Those patients with a double-hit ATM lesion (mutation+11q deletion) had the shorter median time to first treatment (17 months). We found that a genomic variable: TP53 mutations, most of them under the sensitivity of conventional techniques; a cell phenotypic factor: CD38-positive expression; and a classical marker as β2-microglobulin, remained as the unique independent predictors of outcome. The high-throughput determination of TP53 status, particularly in this set of patients frequently lacking high-risk chromosomal aberrations, emerges as a key step, not only for prediction modeling, but also for exploring mutation-specific therapeutic approaches and minimal residual disease monitoring.
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.