LPL is the strongest prognostic factor in a comparative analysis of RNA-based markers in early chronic lymphocytic leukemia
Forskningsoutput: Tidskriftsbidrag › Artikel i vetenskaplig tidskrift
Background The expression levels of LPL, ZAP70, TCL1A, CLLU1 and MCL1 have recently been proposed as prognostic factors in chronic lymphocytic leukemia. However, few studies have systematically compared these different RNA-based markers. Design and Methods Using real-time quantitative PCR, we measured the mRNA expression levels of these genes in unsorted samples from 252 newly diagnosed chronic lymphocytic leukemia patients and correlated our data with established prognostic markers (for example Binet stage, CD38, IGHV gene mutational status and genomic aberrations) and clinical outcome. Results High expression levels of all RNA-based markers, except MCL1, predicted shorter overall survival and time to treatment, with LPL being the most significant. In multivariate analysis including the RNA-based markers, LPL expression was the only independent prognostic marker for overall survival and time to treatment. When studying LPL expression and the established markers, LPL expression retained its independent prognostic strength for overall survival. All of the RNA-based markers, albeit with varying ability, added prognostic information to established markers, with LPL expression giving the most significant results. Notably, high LPL expression predicted a worse outcome in good-prognosis subgroups, such as patients with mutated IGHV genes, Binet stage A, CD38 negativity or favorable cytogenetics. In particular, the combination of LPL expression and CD38 could further stratify Binet stage A patients. Conclusions LPL expression is the strongest RNA-based prognostic marker in chronic lymphocytic leukemia that could potentially be applied to predict outcome in the clinical setting, particularly in the large group of patients with favorable prognosis.
|Enheter & grupper|
Ämnesklassifikation (UKÄ) – OBLIGATORISK
|Status||Published - 2011|
|Peer review utförd||Ja|