ArticleOncology reports2019
Gene mutation profile and risk stratification in AML1‑ETO‑positive acute myeloid leukemia based on next‑generation sequencing.
Article in Oncology reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Genomic profiling and therapeutic targets of Thai melanoma revealed by next-generation sequencing.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Prognosis of Acute Myeloid Leukemia Based on TP53 Mutation Among Adult Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Iranian journal of pathology · 2026Review
- Review
- Molecular genetics profiling of core-binding factor acute myeloid leukemia in pediatrics.Therapeutic advances in hematology · 2025Review
- Modeling and therapeutic targeting of t(8;21) AML with/without TP53 deficiency.International journal of hematology · 2024Article
- Prognostic significance of ASXL1 mutations in acute myeloid leukemia: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Caspian journal of internal medicine · 2024Review
- Prognostic impact ofTherapeutic advances in hematology · 2024Article
- Risk-directed therapy based on genetics and MRD improves the outcomes of AML1-ETO-positive AML patients, a multi-center prospective cohort study.Blood cancer journal · 2023Article
- The Prognostic Value of TP53 Mutations in Adult Acute Myeloid Leukemia: A Meta-Analysis.Transfusion medicine and hemotherapy : offizielles Organ der Deutschen Gesellschaft fur Transfusionsmedizin und Immunhamatologie · 2023Article
- Prognostic values of D816V KIT mutation and peri-transplant CBFB-MYH11 MRD monitoring on acute myeloid leukemia with CBFB-MYH11.Bone marrow transplantation · 2021Article
- A Phase I trial of talazoparib in patients with advanced hematologic malignancies.International journal of hematologic oncology · 2021Article
- Prognostic Impacts of D816VCancers · 2021Article
- A Predictor Combining Clinical and Genetic Factors for AML1-ETO Leukemia Patients.Frontiers in oncology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Gene mutations play an important role in the development and progression of AML1‑ETO‑positive acute myeloid leukemia (AE‑AML). Nevertheless, the gene mutation profile in this subtype of leukemia remains unclear. In addition, the clinical and prognostic effects of different mutant genes may be underestimated. In the present study, gene sequencing was conducted at diagnosis and relapse with next‑generation sequencing (NGS) in 64 patients with newly diagnosed AE‑AML, and 44/64 (68.8%) patients were found to present with a median of 2 (1‑10) recurrent mutations at diagnosis and 6/11 (54.5%) cases were found to present with genetic alterations at relapse. c‑KIT mutation was the most common in this cohort, with an incidence of 27/64 (42.2%) at diagnosis, followed by ASXL1 (n=10, 15.6%), MET (n=8, 12.5%), MLH1 (n=6, 9.4%), TET2 (n=5, 7.8%), and FBXW7, TP53 and DNMT3A (n=5, 7.8%). Survival analysis showed that c‑KIT (exon 8, 17) but not exon 10 adversely affected survival. In addition, ASXL1 and TP53 were poor impact factors for recurrence‑free survival (RFS) (P<0.05), and ASXL1, MET, FBXW7 and TP53 had a negative impact on overall survival (OS) (P<0.05). Multivariate analysis showed that c‑KIT (exon 8, 17) [RFS: hazard ratio (HR) 3.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.54‑7.34, P=0.002; OS: HR 2.84, 95% CI 1.20‑6.71, P=0.018] and ASXL1 mutations (RFS: HR 3.13, 95% CI 1.34‑7.32, P=0.009; OS: HR 3.94, 95% CI 1.62‑9.61, P=0.003) were independent adverse factors for survival. Further, co‑mutation of these two genes showed even worse effect on disease outcome. Collectively, additional gene mutations play critical role in AE‑AML. C‑KIT and ASXL1 mutations are the two most common mutations in this subtype of leukemia. C‑KIT (exon 8, 17) but not exon 10, and also the ASXL1 mutation poorly affect the disease outcome of this disease.
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.