Translocation t(14;16) and multiple myeloma: is it really an independent prognostic factor?
Many trials in myeloma are stratified on cytogenetic abnormalities. Among them, the most commonly chosen are the t(4;14), the del(17p), and the t(14;16). If data are well established for t(4;14) and del(17p), very few data support the use of t(14;16). To address this issue, we retrospectively analyz...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Blood 2011-02, Vol.117 (6), p.2009-2011 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Many trials in myeloma are stratified on cytogenetic abnormalities. Among them, the most commonly chosen are the t(4;14), the del(17p), and the t(14;16). If data are well established for t(4;14) and del(17p), very few data support the use of t(14;16). To address this issue, we retrospectively analyzed 1003 patients with newly diagnosed myeloma for this abnormality. We identified 32 patients with the t(14;16). Compared with patients lacking the t(14;16), we did not observe any difference in overall survival (P = .28). Moreover, in multivariate analyses, the t(14;16) was not prognostic (P = .39). In conclusion, our data do not support the use of t(14;16)-specific probes in the diagnostic panels of multiple myeloma. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0006-4971 1528-0020 |
DOI: | 10.1182/blood-2010-07-295105 |