ArticleJournal of medicine and life
Importance of assessing cytogenetic and molecular risk factors in acute myeloid leukemia therapy.
Article in Journal of medicine and life. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is a heterogeneous disease in clinical presentation, outcome and therapeutic response. Cytogenetic and molecular characteristics are important prognostic indicators allowing the identification of distinct subtypes of AML, prognostic stratification and risk-adapted treatment. We present our experience during 5 years, in which we treated 245 patients with AML, of which we could genetically characterize 48 cases (26 females, 22 males) with a median age of 52 years. Cytogenetic analysis was performed by GTG banding on cultures of marrow cells treated with colcemid. Molecular analysis used RT-PCR performed on ABI 9700 platform in order to identify the following fusion genes: E2A-PBX1, TEL-AML1, AML1-ETO, PML-RARα, MLL-AF4, CBFC-MYH11, BCR-ABL, SIL-TAL, and MLL-AF9as well as mutations in Flt3, NPM1, WT1 genes. Fourteen patients were older than 60 years. In 12 we performed cytogenetic analysis showing 5 cases with complex karyotype, 2 normal karyotypes, 1 case of del(21), del (9), 11q- and t(3;15) respectively as well as 2 unevaluable karyotypes. These anomalies were associated with a high incidence of secondary AMLs (10/14) and with a low remission (CR) rate (5/14). Out of the 35 patients younger than 60 years, 25 were evaluated by cytogenetics showing a high incidence of favorable cytogenetic changes: 6 anomalies of chromosome 16 (5 inv (16) and 1 t (16; 16)), 3 t (15; 17), 3 cases of t (8; 21) of which 2 with additional abnormalities, 7 normal karyotypes and 1 case of 7q-, -y,-3 and respectively -8 associated with +18. In 25 cases molecular analysis was performed showing alterations in 21 patients: 6 cases with AML/ETO, 3 PML/RAR, 7 Flt3 mutations (2 associated with NPM1 mutation) as well as 1 case of isolated mutation of NPM1 and respectively WT1. CR rate was of 28/35. All cases with t (15; 17) and PML/RAR as well all cases with t (8; 21) and/or AML/ETO achieved CR. Out of the 7 cases with Flt3 mutations only 4 achieved CR including the 2 cases with associated NPM1 mutations. In our experience, genetic characteristics correlate with other prognostic markers such as age and secondary leukemia; "favorable" genetic anomalies were associated with a high CR rate; association of t (8; 21) with additional abnormalities did not influence CR rate.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31803284PMC6880215What 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.