Leukemia research · 2022
Molecular genetic characterization of Philadelphia chromosome-positive acute myeloid leukemia.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Zhou Qianghua, Zhao Davidson, Eladl Entsar, Capo-Chichi Jose-Mario, Kim Dennis Dong Hwan, Chang Hong
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Philadelphia chromosome-positive acute myeloid leukemia (Ph+ AML) is a provisional disease entity in the 2016 WHO classification, while its genetic profile of Ph+ AML remains poorly defined. In addition, the differentiating features of Ph+ AML and chronic myeloid leukemia in myeloid blast crisis (CML-MBC) remain controversial.
METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of 15 Ph+ AML patients to compare their clinical and laboratory profiles with 27 CML-MBC patients.
RESULTS: Compared to CML-MBC, Ph+ AML patients presented with significantly higher peripheral WBC count and bone marrow blast percentage. The immunophenotypic profiles were largely similar between Ph+ AML and CML-MBC, except for CD4 expression, which was significantly enriched in CML-MBC. Ph+ AML patients less frequently harboured co-occurring additional cytogenetic abnormalities (ACA) compared to CML-MBC, and trisomy 19 (23%) and IDH1/2 (46%) were the most common ACA and mutated genes in Ph+ AML, respectively. Overall survival (OS) did not significantly differ between Ph+ AML and CML-MBC. Ph+ AML without CML-like features appeared to have a better outcome compared to Ph+ AML with CML-like features; ACA in Ph+ AML may confer an even worse prognosis.
CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that patients with Ph+ AML share similar genetic profiles and clinical outcomes with those with CML-MBC, thus should be classified as a high-risk entity.
METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of 15 Ph+ AML patients to compare their clinical and laboratory profiles with 27 CML-MBC patients.
RESULTS: Compared to CML-MBC, Ph+ AML patients presented with significantly higher peripheral WBC count and bone marrow blast percentage. The immunophenotypic profiles were largely similar between Ph+ AML and CML-MBC, except for CD4 expression, which was significantly enriched in CML-MBC. Ph+ AML patients less frequently harboured co-occurring additional cytogenetic abnormalities (ACA) compared to CML-MBC, and trisomy 19 (23%) and IDH1/2 (46%) were the most common ACA and mutated genes in Ph+ AML, respectively. Overall survival (OS) did not significantly differ between Ph+ AML and CML-MBC. Ph+ AML without CML-like features appeared to have a better outcome compared to Ph+ AML with CML-like features; ACA in Ph+ AML may confer an even worse prognosis.
CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that patients with Ph+ AML share similar genetic profiles and clinical outcomes with those with CML-MBC, thus should be classified as a high-risk entity.