| 1. |
- Angenendt, Linus, et al.
(författare)
-
Chromosomal Abnormalities and Prognosis in NPM1-Mutated Acute Myeloid Leukemia : A Pooled Analysis of Individual Patient Data From Nine International Cohorts
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Journal of Clinical Oncology. - : AMER SOC CLINICAL ONCOLOGY. - 0732-183X .- 1527-7755. ; 37:29, s. 2632-2642
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- PURPOSE: Nucleophosmin 1 (NPM1) mutations are associated with a favorable prognosis in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) when an internal tandem duplication (ITD) in the fms-related tyrosine kinase 3 gene (FLT3) is absent (FLT3-ITDneg) or present with a low allelic ratio (FLT3-ITDlow). The 2017 European LeukemiaNet guidelines assume this is true regardless of accompanying cytogenetic abnormalities. We investigated the validity of this assumption.METHODS: We analyzed associations between karyotype and outcome in intensively treated patients with NPM1(mut)/FLT3-ITDneg/low AML who were prospectively enrolled in registry databases from nine international study groups or treatment centers.RESULTS: Among 2,426 patients with NPM1(mut)/FLT3-ITDneg/low AML, 2,000 (82.4%) had a normal and 426 (17.6%) had an abnormal karyotype, including 329 patients (13.6%) with intermediate and 83 patients (3.4%) with adverse-risk chromosomal abnormalities. In patients with NPM1(mut)/FLT3-ITDneg/low AML, adverse cytogenetics were associated with lower complete remission rates (87.7%, 86.0%, and 66.3% for normal, aberrant intermediate, and adverse karyotype, respectively; P < .001), inferior 5-year overall (52.4%, 44.8%, 19.5%, respectively; P < .001) and event-free survival (40.6%, 36.0%, 18.1%, respectively; P < .001), and a higher 5-year cumulative incidence of relapse (43.6%, 44.2%, 51.9%, respectively; P = .0012). These associations remained in multivariable mixed-effects regression analyses adjusted for known clinicopathologic risk factors (P < .001 for all end points). In patients with adverse-risk chromosomal aberrations, we found no significant influence of the NPM1 mutational status on outcome.CONCLUSION: Karyotype abnormalities are significantly associated with outcome in NPM1(mut)/FLT3-ITDneg/low AML. When adverse-risk cytogenetics are present, patients with NPM1(mut) share the same unfavorable prognosis as patients with NPM1 wild type and should be classified and treated accordingly. Thus, cytogenetic risk predominates over molecular risk in NPM1(mut)/FLT3-ITDneg/low AML.
|
|
| 2. |
- Klionsky, Daniel J., et al.
(författare)
-
Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy
- 2012
-
Ingår i: Autophagy. - : Informa UK Limited. - 1554-8635 .- 1554-8627. ; 8:4, s. 445-544
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field.
|
|
