[PDF][PDF] Prognostic factors and outcome of core binding factor acute myeloid leukemia patients with t (8; 21) differ from those of patients with inv (16): a Cancer and …
Journal of clinical oncology, 2005•researchgate.net
Purpose Because both t (8; 21) and inv (16) disrupt core binding factor (CBF) in acute
myeloid leukemia (AML) and confer relatively favorable prognoses, these cytogenetic
groups are often treated similarly. Recent studies, however, have shown different gene
profiling for the two groups, underscoring potential biologic differences. Therefore, we
sought to determine whether these two cytogenetic groups should also be considered
separate entities from a clinical standpoint.
myeloid leukemia (AML) and confer relatively favorable prognoses, these cytogenetic
groups are often treated similarly. Recent studies, however, have shown different gene
profiling for the two groups, underscoring potential biologic differences. Therefore, we
sought to determine whether these two cytogenetic groups should also be considered
separate entities from a clinical standpoint.
Purpose
Because both t (8; 21) and inv (16) disrupt core binding factor (CBF) in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and confer relatively favorable prognoses, these cytogenetic groups are often treated similarly. Recent studies, however, have shown different gene profiling for the two groups, underscoring potential biologic differences. Therefore, we sought to determine whether these two cytogenetic groups should also be considered separate entities from a clinical standpoint.
researchgate.net