Abstract
Molecular markers are important in guiding treatment and predicting outcome in the genomic era. Meta-analysis of molecular markers in myelofibrosis through a search of PubMed and Medline through October 31, 2017 was performed. Markers with more than 3 studies that compared overall survival (OS) and leukemia-free survival (LFS) were analyzed. A total of 16 studies were included. Hazard ratios (HRs) for OS were as follows: IDH 2.65 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.66-4.21), SRSF2 2.12 (95% CI, 1.18-3.79), high-risk myeloma 2.11 (95% CI, 1.70-2.61), ASXL1 1.92 (95% CI, 1.60-2.32), EZH2 1.88 (95% CI, 1.32-2.67), JAK2 1.41 (95% CI, 1.04-1.93) in the univariate analysis and 1.49 (95% CI, 0.42-5.30) in the multivariate analysis. LFS of JAK2 and SRSF2 had HRs of 1.81 (95% CI, 0.42-5.30) and 0.36 (95% CI, 0.02-6.48), respectively. In conclusion, mutations in IDH, SRSF2, and ASXL1 had worse prognosis in OS with HRs around 2. JAK2 and SRSF2 mutation were not associated with increased leukemia transformation. The adverse effect of triple-negative, which was often compared with CALR mutation, needs to be explored.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 558-568 |
| Number of pages | 11 |
| Journal | Clinical Lymphoma, Myeloma and Leukemia |
| Volume | 18 |
| Issue number | 9 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 2018 Sep 1 |
Fingerprint
All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes
- Hematology
- Oncology
- Cancer Research
Cite this
}
Molecular Markers and Prognosis of Myelofibrosis in the Genomic Era : A Meta-analysis. / Lee, Yen Chien; Hsieh, Chung Cheng; Lee, Yen Ling; Li, Chung-Yi.
In: Clinical Lymphoma, Myeloma and Leukemia, Vol. 18, No. 9, 01.09.2018, p. 558-568.Research output: Contribution to journal › Review article
TY - JOUR
T1 - Molecular Markers and Prognosis of Myelofibrosis in the Genomic Era
T2 - A Meta-analysis
AU - Lee, Yen Chien
AU - Hsieh, Chung Cheng
AU - Lee, Yen Ling
AU - Li, Chung-Yi
PY - 2018/9/1
Y1 - 2018/9/1
N2 - Molecular markers are important in guiding treatment and predicting outcome in the genomic era. Meta-analysis of molecular markers in myelofibrosis through a search of PubMed and Medline through October 31, 2017 was performed. Markers with more than 3 studies that compared overall survival (OS) and leukemia-free survival (LFS) were analyzed. A total of 16 studies were included. Hazard ratios (HRs) for OS were as follows: IDH 2.65 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.66-4.21), SRSF2 2.12 (95% CI, 1.18-3.79), high-risk myeloma 2.11 (95% CI, 1.70-2.61), ASXL1 1.92 (95% CI, 1.60-2.32), EZH2 1.88 (95% CI, 1.32-2.67), JAK2 1.41 (95% CI, 1.04-1.93) in the univariate analysis and 1.49 (95% CI, 0.42-5.30) in the multivariate analysis. LFS of JAK2 and SRSF2 had HRs of 1.81 (95% CI, 0.42-5.30) and 0.36 (95% CI, 0.02-6.48), respectively. In conclusion, mutations in IDH, SRSF2, and ASXL1 had worse prognosis in OS with HRs around 2. JAK2 and SRSF2 mutation were not associated with increased leukemia transformation. The adverse effect of triple-negative, which was often compared with CALR mutation, needs to be explored.
AB - Molecular markers are important in guiding treatment and predicting outcome in the genomic era. Meta-analysis of molecular markers in myelofibrosis through a search of PubMed and Medline through October 31, 2017 was performed. Markers with more than 3 studies that compared overall survival (OS) and leukemia-free survival (LFS) were analyzed. A total of 16 studies were included. Hazard ratios (HRs) for OS were as follows: IDH 2.65 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.66-4.21), SRSF2 2.12 (95% CI, 1.18-3.79), high-risk myeloma 2.11 (95% CI, 1.70-2.61), ASXL1 1.92 (95% CI, 1.60-2.32), EZH2 1.88 (95% CI, 1.32-2.67), JAK2 1.41 (95% CI, 1.04-1.93) in the univariate analysis and 1.49 (95% CI, 0.42-5.30) in the multivariate analysis. LFS of JAK2 and SRSF2 had HRs of 1.81 (95% CI, 0.42-5.30) and 0.36 (95% CI, 0.02-6.48), respectively. In conclusion, mutations in IDH, SRSF2, and ASXL1 had worse prognosis in OS with HRs around 2. JAK2 and SRSF2 mutation were not associated with increased leukemia transformation. The adverse effect of triple-negative, which was often compared with CALR mutation, needs to be explored.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85049338389&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85049338389&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.clml.2018.06.004
DO - 10.1016/j.clml.2018.06.004
M3 - Review article
C2 - 29970342
AN - SCOPUS:85049338389
VL - 18
SP - 558
EP - 568
JO - Clinical Lymphoma, Myeloma and Leukemia
JF - Clinical Lymphoma, Myeloma and Leukemia
SN - 2152-2650
IS - 9
ER -