Cargando…
Comprehensive Mutation Profile in Acute Myeloid Leukemia Patients with RUNX1-RUNX1T1 or CBFB-MYH11 Fusions
OBJECTIVE: This study was undertaken with the aim of better understanding the genomic landscape of core-binding factor (CBF) acute myeloid leukemia (AML). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 112 genes that were detected using next-generation sequencing in 134 patients with de novo CBF...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Galenos Publishing
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9160702/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35445594 http://dx.doi.org/10.4274/tjh.galenos.2022.2021.0641 |
Sumario: | OBJECTIVE: This study was undertaken with the aim of better understanding the genomic landscape of core-binding factor (CBF) acute myeloid leukemia (AML). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 112 genes that were detected using next-generation sequencing in 134 patients with de novo CBF-AML. FLT3-ITD, NPM1, and CEBPA mutations were detected by DNA-PCR and Sanger sequencing. RESULTS: In the whole cohort, the most commonly mutated genes were c-KIT (33.6%) and NRAS (33.6%), followed by FLT3 (18.7%), KRAS (13.4%), RELN (8.2%), and NOTCH1 (8.2%). The frequencies of mutated genes associated with epigenetic modification, such as IDH1, IDH2, DNMT3A, and TET2, were low, being present in 1.5%, 0.7%, 2.2%, and 7.5% of the total number of patients, respectively. Inv(16)/t(16;16) AML patients exhibited more mutations of NRAS and KRAS (p=0.001 and 0.0001, respectively) than t(8;21) AML patients. Functionally mutated genes involved in signaling pathways were observed more frequently in the inv(16)/t(16;16) AML group (p=0.016), while the mutations involved in cohesin were found more frequently in the t(8;21) AML group (p=0.011). Significantly higher white blood cell counts were found in inv(16)/t(16;16) AML patients with c-KIT (c-KIT(mut)) or NRAS (NRAS(mut)) mutations compared to the corresponding t(8;21) AML/c-KIT(mut) and t(8;21) AML/NRAS(mut) groups (p=0.001 and 0.009, respectively). CONCLUSION: The mutation profiles of t(8;21) AML patients showed evident differences from those of patients with inv(16)/t(16;16) AML. We have provided a comprehensive overview of the mutational landscape of CBF-AML. |
---|