Prevalence and Prognosis of Secondary Genetic Aberrations Among Patients With Core Binding Factor Acute Myeloid Leukemia: A Mitelman Database Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Core binding factor acute myeloid leukemia (CBF-AML) comprises t(8;21) and inv(16) and usually has a favorable prognosis. However, a wide spectrum of secondary genetic aberrations has been shown to be associated with worse outcomes with respect to overall survival (OS) and relapse. We aimed to identify secondary molecular and chromosomal aberrations within each group of CBF-AML, i.e., t(8;21) and inv(16), and to evaluate their prognosis with OS. Methods: Using the Mitelman Database of Chromosome Aberrations and Gene Fusions in Cancer, we analyzed 193 cases of CBF-AML reported between 2011 and 2021. We conducted a survival analysis to determine the 5-year OS, and we conducted univariate and multivariate Cox regression to identify independent genetic factors related to OS. Results: Among the 193 cases with CBF-AML, structural and numerical chromosome rearrangements were 25.9% and 40.9%, respectively, and secondary genetic mutations were 54.9%. The 5-year OS for the presence of del(7) and trisomy 22 was significantly worse. NRAS mutations had a worse 5-year OS in the t(8;21) group in the univariate analysis but showed no significant difference in the multivariate analysis. Conclusions: CBF-AML has heterogeneous cytogenetic characteristics but no difference in the 5-year OS between the inv(16) and t(8;21) groups. Finally, the presence of del(7), trisomy 22 and NRAS mutations showed a potential prognostic impact in CBF-AML patients. Secondary genetic findings may need to be identified to determine its association to a worse prognosis, and in the future develop better targeted therapies in patients with CBF-AML. World J Oncol. 2023;14(6):488-498 doi: https://doi.org/10.14740/wjon1661
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".