ArticleEpigenetics2016
Prognostic impact of epigenetic classification in chronic lymphocytic leukemia: The case of subset #2.
Article in Epigenetics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- Unraveling the Epigenetic Landscape of Mature B Cell Neoplasia: Mechanisms, Biomarkers, and Therapeutic Opportunities.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Targeted therapies overcome the poor prognosis of stereotyped Subset#2 chronic lymphocytic leukemia : a real-world multicentric study.Leukemia · 2025Article
- Machine learning and multi-omics data in chronic lymphocytic leukemia: the future of precision medicine?Frontiers in genetics · 2023Review
- Article
- Towards precision medicine in lymphoid malignancies.Journal of internal medicine · 2022Review
- IGHV-associated methylation signatures more accurately predict clinical outcomes of chronic lymphocytic leukemia patients than IGHV mutation load.Haematologica · 2022Article
- Evaluation of a Prognostic Epigenetic Classification System in Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Patients.Biomarker insights · 2022Article
- Altered DNA Methylation Profiles inInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2021Article
- Chromatin network markers of leukemia.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2020Article
- Machine learning and clinical epigenetics: a review of challenges for diagnosis and classification.Clinical epigenetics · 2020Review
- Clinical significance of DNA methylation in chronic lymphocytic leukemia patients: results from 3 UK clinical trials.Blood advances · 2019Article
- Article
- Chronic lymphocytic leukaemia.Nature reviews. Disease primers · 2017Review
- Decoding the DNA Methylome of Mantle Cell Lymphoma in the Light of the Entire B Cell Lineage.Cancer cell · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Based on the methylation status of 5 single CpG sites, a novel epigenetic classification of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) was recently proposed, classifying CLL patients into 3 clinico-biological subgroups with different outcome, termed memory like CLL (m-CLL), naïve like CLL (n-CLL), and a third intermediate CLL subgroup (i-CLL). While m-CLL and n-CLL patients at large corresponded to patients carrying mutated and unmutated IGHV genes, respectively, limited information exists regarding the less defined i-CLL group. Using pyrosequencing, we investigated the prognostic impact of the proposed 5 CpG signature in a well-characterized CLL cohort (135 cases), including IGHV-mutated and unmutated patients as well as clinically aggressive stereotyped subset #2 patients. Overall, we confirmed the signature's association with established prognostic markers. Moreover, in the presence of the IGHV mutational status, the epigenetic signature remained independently associated with both time-to-first-treatment and overall survival in multivariate analyses. As a prime finding, we observed that subset #2 patients were predominantly classified as i-CLL, probably reflecting their borderline IGHV mutational status (97-99% germline identity), though having a similarly poor prognosis as n-CLL patients. In summary, we validated the epigenetic classifier as an independent factor in CLL prognostication and provide further evidence that subset #2 is a member of the i-CLL group, hence supporting the existence of a third, intermediate epigenetic subgroup.
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.