scholarly journals Prognostic significance of the Medical Research Council cytogenetic classification compared with the European LeukaemiaNet risk classification system in acute myeloid leukaemia

2015 ◽  
Vol 170 (4) ◽  
pp. 590-593 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tapan Kadia ◽  
Hagop Kantarjian ◽  
Guillermo Garcia-Manero ◽  
Gautam Borthakur ◽  
Xuemei Wang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Acute Myeloid Leukaemia ◽  
Medical Research ◽  
Myeloid Leukaemia ◽  
Classification System ◽  
Research Council ◽  
Medical Research Council ◽  
Prognostic Significance ◽  
Risk Classification ◽  
Acute Myeloid

scholarly journals Results of a randomized trial in children with Acute Myeloid Leukaemia: Medical Research Council AML12 trial

2011 ◽  
Vol 155 (3) ◽  
pp. 366-376 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brenda E. S. Gibson ◽  
David K. H. Webb ◽  
Andrew J. Howman ◽  
Siebold S. N. De Graaf ◽  
Christine J. Harrison ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Acute Myeloid Leukaemia ◽  
Medical Research ◽  
Randomized Trial ◽  
Myeloid Leukaemia ◽  
Research Council ◽  
Medical Research Council ◽  
Acute Myeloid

Refinement of cytogenetic classification in acute myeloid leukemia: determination of prognostic significance of rare recurring chromosomal abnormalities among 5876 younger adult patients treated in the United Kingdom Medical Research Council trials

Blood ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 116 (3) ◽  
pp. 354-365 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Grimwade ◽  
Robert K. Hills ◽  
Anthony V. Moorman ◽  
Helen Walker ◽  
Stephen Chatters ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Acute Myeloid Leukemia ◽  
Medical Research ◽  
Myeloid Leukemia ◽  
Research Council ◽  
Medical Research Council ◽  
Chromosomal Abnormalities ◽  
Prognostic Significance ◽  
Multivariable Analysis ◽  
All Trans Retinoic Acid ◽  
Acute Myeloid

Abstract Diagnostic karyotype provides the framework for risk-stratification schemes in acute myeloid leukemia (AML); however, the prognostic significance of many rare recurring cytogenetic abnormalities remains uncertain. We studied the outcomes of 5876 patients (16-59 years of age) who were classified into 54 cytogenetic subgroups and treated in the Medical Research Council trials. In multivariable analysis, t(15;17)(q22;q21), t(8;21)(q22;q22), and inv(16)(p13q22)/t(16;16)(p13;q22) were the only abnormalities found to predict a relatively favorable prognosis (P < .001). In patients with t(15;17) treated with extended all-trans retinoic acid and anthracycline-based chemotherapy, additional cytogenetic changes did not have an impact on prognosis. Similarly, additional abnormalities did not have a significant adverse effect in t(8;21) AML; whereas in patients with inv(16), the presence of additional changes, particularly +22, predicted a better outcome (P = .004). In multivariable analyses, various abnormalities predicted a significantly poorer outcome, namely abn(3q) (excluding t(3;5)(q25;q34)), inv(3)(q21q26)/t(3;3)(q21;q26), add(5q)/del(5q), −5, −7, add(7q)/del(7q), t(6;11)(q27;q23), t(10;11)(p11∼13;q23), other t(11q23) (excluding t(9;11)(p21∼22;q23) and t(11;19)(q23;p13)), t(9;22)(q34;q11), −17, and abn(17p). Patients lacking the aforementioned favorable or adverse aberrations but with 4 or more unrelated abnormalities also exhibited a significantly poorer prognosis (designated “complex” karyotype group). These data allow more reliable prediction of outcome for patients with rarer abnormalities and may facilitate the development of consensus in reporting of karyotypic information in clinical trials involving younger adults with AML. This study is registered at http://www.isrctn.org as ISRCTN55678797 and ISRCTN17161961.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document