Cargando…

Outcome and prognostic factors of CBF pediatric AML patients with t(8;21) differ from patients with inv(16)

PURPOSE: To explore the outcome and prognostic factors between inv(16) and t(8;21) disrupt core binding factor (CBF) in acute myeloid leukemia (AML). METHODS: The clinical characteristic, probability of achieving complete remission (CR), overall survival (OS) and cumulative incidence of relapse (CIR...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Qiu, Kun-yin, Liao, Xiong-yu, Li, Yang, Huang, Ke, Xu, Hong-gui, Fang, Jian-pei, Zhou, Dun-hua
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10210276/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37231380
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12885-023-10965-5
_version_ 1785047034940620800
author Qiu, Kun-yin
Liao, Xiong-yu
Li, Yang
Huang, Ke
Xu, Hong-gui
Fang, Jian-pei
Zhou, Dun-hua
author_facet Qiu, Kun-yin
Liao, Xiong-yu
Li, Yang
Huang, Ke
Xu, Hong-gui
Fang, Jian-pei
Zhou, Dun-hua
author_sort Qiu, Kun-yin
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: To explore the outcome and prognostic factors between inv(16) and t(8;21) disrupt core binding factor (CBF) in acute myeloid leukemia (AML). METHODS: The clinical characteristic, probability of achieving complete remission (CR), overall survival (OS) and cumulative incidence of relapse (CIR) were compared between inv(16) and (8;21). RESULTS: The CR rate was 95.2%, 10-year OS was 84.4% and CIR was 29.4%. Subgroup analysis showed that patients with t(8;21) had significant lower 10-year OS and CIR than patients with inv(16). Unexpectedly, there was a trend for pediatric AML receiving five courses cytarabine to have a lower CIR than four courses cytarabine (19.8% vs 29.3%, P = 0.06). Among the cohort of no-gemtuzumab ozogamicin(GO) treatment, inv (16) patients showed a similar 10-year OS (78.9% vs 83.5%; P = 0.69) and an inferior outcome on 10-year CIR (58.6% vs 28.9%, P = 0.01) than those patients with t(8;21). In contrast, inv (16) and t(8;21) patients receiving GO treatment had comparable OS (OS: 90.5% vs. 86.5%, P = 0.66) as well as CIR (40.4% vs. 21.4%, P = 0.13). CONCLUSION: Our data demonstrated that more cumulative cytarabine exposure could improve the outcome of childhood patients with t(8;21), while GO treatment was beneficial to the pediatric patients with inv(16). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12885-023-10965-5.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10210276
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-102102762023-05-26 Outcome and prognostic factors of CBF pediatric AML patients with t(8;21) differ from patients with inv(16) Qiu, Kun-yin Liao, Xiong-yu Li, Yang Huang, Ke Xu, Hong-gui Fang, Jian-pei Zhou, Dun-hua BMC Cancer Research PURPOSE: To explore the outcome and prognostic factors between inv(16) and t(8;21) disrupt core binding factor (CBF) in acute myeloid leukemia (AML). METHODS: The clinical characteristic, probability of achieving complete remission (CR), overall survival (OS) and cumulative incidence of relapse (CIR) were compared between inv(16) and (8;21). RESULTS: The CR rate was 95.2%, 10-year OS was 84.4% and CIR was 29.4%. Subgroup analysis showed that patients with t(8;21) had significant lower 10-year OS and CIR than patients with inv(16). Unexpectedly, there was a trend for pediatric AML receiving five courses cytarabine to have a lower CIR than four courses cytarabine (19.8% vs 29.3%, P = 0.06). Among the cohort of no-gemtuzumab ozogamicin(GO) treatment, inv (16) patients showed a similar 10-year OS (78.9% vs 83.5%; P = 0.69) and an inferior outcome on 10-year CIR (58.6% vs 28.9%, P = 0.01) than those patients with t(8;21). In contrast, inv (16) and t(8;21) patients receiving GO treatment had comparable OS (OS: 90.5% vs. 86.5%, P = 0.66) as well as CIR (40.4% vs. 21.4%, P = 0.13). CONCLUSION: Our data demonstrated that more cumulative cytarabine exposure could improve the outcome of childhood patients with t(8;21), while GO treatment was beneficial to the pediatric patients with inv(16). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12885-023-10965-5. BioMed Central 2023-05-25 /pmc/articles/PMC10210276/ /pubmed/37231380 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12885-023-10965-5 Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Qiu, Kun-yin
Liao, Xiong-yu
Li, Yang
Huang, Ke
Xu, Hong-gui
Fang, Jian-pei
Zhou, Dun-hua
Outcome and prognostic factors of CBF pediatric AML patients with t(8;21) differ from patients with inv(16)
title Outcome and prognostic factors of CBF pediatric AML patients with t(8;21) differ from patients with inv(16)
title_full Outcome and prognostic factors of CBF pediatric AML patients with t(8;21) differ from patients with inv(16)
title_fullStr Outcome and prognostic factors of CBF pediatric AML patients with t(8;21) differ from patients with inv(16)
title_full_unstemmed Outcome and prognostic factors of CBF pediatric AML patients with t(8;21) differ from patients with inv(16)
title_short Outcome and prognostic factors of CBF pediatric AML patients with t(8;21) differ from patients with inv(16)
title_sort outcome and prognostic factors of cbf pediatric aml patients with t(8;21) differ from patients with inv(16)
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10210276/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37231380
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12885-023-10965-5
work_keys_str_mv AT qiukunyin outcomeandprognosticfactorsofcbfpediatricamlpatientswitht821differfrompatientswithinv16
AT liaoxiongyu outcomeandprognosticfactorsofcbfpediatricamlpatientswitht821differfrompatientswithinv16
AT liyang outcomeandprognosticfactorsofcbfpediatricamlpatientswitht821differfrompatientswithinv16
AT huangke outcomeandprognosticfactorsofcbfpediatricamlpatientswitht821differfrompatientswithinv16
AT xuhonggui outcomeandprognosticfactorsofcbfpediatricamlpatientswitht821differfrompatientswithinv16
AT fangjianpei outcomeandprognosticfactorsofcbfpediatricamlpatientswitht821differfrompatientswithinv16
AT zhoudunhua outcomeandprognosticfactorsofcbfpediatricamlpatientswitht821differfrompatientswithinv16