MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2730377080 · doi:10.1182/blood.v128.22.4990.4990

Elucidating the Thrombogenic Risk of Non-O Blood Groups in Children with Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia (ALL): Is Von Willebrand Factor a Culprit ?

2016· article· en· W2730377080 sur OpenAlexaff
Terry Mizrahi, Caroline Laverdière, Michéle David, Jean‐Marie Leclerc, Lehana Thabane, Anthony K.C. Chan, Uma H. Athale

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2016
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueHemoglobinopathies and Related Disorders
Établissements canadiensMcMaster UniversitySt. Joseph’s Healthcare HamiltonUniversité de Montréal
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésABO blood group systemVon Willebrand factorMedicineContext (archaeology)Internal medicineRisk factorImmunologyGastroenterologyLymphoblastic LeukemiaLeukemiaPlateletBiology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Individuals with non-O blood group are shown to have increased risk of thromboembolism (TE). The exact pathogenesis of the prothrombotic effect of non-O blood group, is however not known. Because individuals with O-blood group have low levels of von Willebrand factor (vWF) compared to those with non-O blood group, vWF has been contemplated as a pathogenetic mechanism in ABO blood group-related prothrombotic risk. However, the available data regarding the role of vWF in the thrombotic risk of non-O blood group are inconclusive. Children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) are at increased risk of TE. Several factors such as older age, leukemia phenotype and asparaginase have been shown to impact the risk of TE in children with ALL. We have recently shown that non-O blood group and circulating blasts were significant risk factors for TE in children with ALL. We have also shown that at diagnosis of ALL patients with circulating blasts have significantly higher levels of vWF compared to those without circulating blasts.  Within the context of a larger study aimed to define risk factors for symptomatic TE (sTE) in children with de novo ALL, we undertook a sub-study to evaluate the relationship of ABO blood groups and vWF level at diagnosis of ALL, and to evaluate the impact of circulating blasts on the vWF levels in children with O and non-O blood groups. We hypothesized that compared to patients with O-blood group, those with non-O blood group will have significantly higher levels of vWF and that circulating blasts will have additive effect on the vWF levels in patients with non-O blood group.  Methods : The multicenter, prospective, analytical cohort study included consenting patients (1-≤18 yrs. of age) with de novo ALL enrolled on the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute 05-001 therapeutic trial. Details of patient demography including ABO blood group, ALL diagnosis, therapy and symptomatic TE (sTE) were collected. Samples collected prior to starting ALL-therapy were analyzed centrally for prothrombotic defects (PD) including [protein C, S, antithrombin, Factor VIII:C, vWF, anticardiolipin antibodies and gene polymorphisms of methylene tetrahydrofolate reductase C677T, prothrombin G20210A, Factor V Leiden]. Age-adjusted standardized laboratory data defined PD. Regression analyses evaluated relationship between risk factors and sTE. Thrombosis-free survival was estimated using Kaplan-Meier method.  Results : Of 131 enrolled patients [mean age (range) 6.4 (1-17) yrs.; 70 boys], 21 (16%) developed sTE. ABO blood group information was available for 127 patients; 51 patients had blood group O and 76 non-O (57 with blood group A, 15 with B, and 4 with AB). There was no impact of PD including vWF on the risk of sTE. Older age compared to age ≤ 5 yr. [Odds Ratio (OR) 1.9, p=0.029] and non-O blood-group (OR 4.27, p=0.028) compared to O group were identified as independent predictors for development of sTE. Patients with peripheral blasts had higher odds of developing sTE (OR 7.79; p=0.059).The sTE-free survival was affected by older age (Hazard ratio (HR) 1.1, p 0.03), ALL risk type (HR 3.0, p 0.025) and blood group (O blood group vs non-O blood group, HR 0.23, p 0.03). Table 1 compares the vWF levels in patients with O and non-O blood group and those with and without circulating blasts. Overall, there was no difference in the vWF level at ALL diagnosis between patients with O vs. Non-O blood group. Patients with circulating blasts had higher levels of vWF at ALL diagnosis compared to those without circulating blasts; this comparison was statistically significant for non-O blood group. However, there was no interaction between ABO blood group and circulating blasts on vWF levels (p=0.723)  Conclusion : There was no effect of blood group type on the vWF level at diagnosis of ALL. Patients with circulating blasts had significantly higher levels of vWF at ALL diagnosis and the vWF levels were significantly higher in patients with non-O blood group and circulating blasts. Although it is likely that the relationship between blood group and vWF may be affected by effect of circulating blasts on vWF, we showed no interaction between ABO blood groups and circulating blasts on the vWF levels at diagnosis of ALL in children. Small sample size is a limitation of current study. Further studies with larger sample size are needed to elaborate the relationship between vWF, ABO blood groups, and circulating blasts. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,004
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,008

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,004
Tête enseignante GPT0,209
Écart entre enseignants0,205 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2016
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBlood→Même sujetHemoglobinopathies and Related Disorders→Travaux en français237 207→