Skip to main content

Table 1 Comparison of clinical and molecular characteristics with miR-425 expression in AML patients

From: MiR-425 expression profiling in acute myeloid leukemia might guide the treatment choice between allogeneic transplantation and chemotherapy

Characteristic Chemotherapy group Allo-HSCT group
High miR-425 (n = 45) Low miR-425 (n = 45) P High miR-425 (n = 36) Low miR-425 (n = 36) P
Age/years, median (range) 63 (22–88) 68 (33–83) 0.138 52 (25–72) 50 (18–69) 0.450
Age group/no. (%), years    0.652    0.793
 < 60 16 (35.6) 13 (28.9)   27 (75.0) 25 (69.4)  
 ≥ 60 29 (64.4) 32 (71.1)   9 (25.0) 11 (30.6)  
Gender/no. (%)    0.289    1.000
 Male 28 (62.2) 22 (48.9)   21 (58.3) 20 (55.6)  
 Female 17 (37.8) 23 (51.1)   15 (41.7) 16 (44.4)  
WBC/× 109/L, median (range) 15.2 (0.7–298.4) 16.9 (1.0–297.4) 0.589 30.3 (1.5–98.8) 28.3 (0.6–223.8) 0.978
BM blast/ %, median (range) 67 (30–98) 75 (37–99) 0.050 68 (30–97) 76 (35–100) 0.131
PB blast/%, median (range) 18 (0–71) 53 (0–98) 0.002 41 (0–85) 53 (0–96) 0.116
FAB subtypes/no. (%)
 M0 0 (0.0) 8 (17.8) 0.006 3 (8.3) 6 (16.7) 0.478
 M1 7 (15.6) 13 (28.9) 0.201 8 (22.2) 15 (41.7) 0.129
 M2 13 (28.9) 8 (17.8) 0.231 13 (36.1) 6 (16.7) 0.107
 M4 14 (31.1) 10 (22.2) 0.340 8 (22.2) 6 (16.7) 0.767
 M5 9 (20) 4 (8.9) 0.230 3 (8.3) 1 (2.8) 0.614
 M6 0 (0.0) 1 (2.2) 1.000 1 (2.8) 0 (0.0) 1.000
 M7 1 (2.2) 1 (2.2) 1.000 0 (0.0) 1 (2.8) 1.000
 Others 1 (2.2) 0 (0.0) 1.000 0 (0.0) 1 (2.8) 1.000
Karyotype/no. (%)
 Normal 21 (46.7) 23 (51.1) 0.833 17 (47.2) 17 (47.2) 1.000
 Complex 5 (11.1) 7 (15.6) 0.758 5 (13.9) 7 (19.4) 0.753
 MLL rearranged 2 (4.4) 1 (2.2) 1.000 2 (5.6) 1 (2.8) 1.000
 CBFβ-MYH11 7 (15.6) 0 (0.0) 0.012 5 (13.9) 0 (0.0) 0.054
 BCR-ABL1 1 (2.2) 0 (0.0) 1.000 1 (2.8) 1 (2.8) 1.000
 RUNX1-RUNX1T 5 (11.1) 1 (2.2) 0.203 0 (0.0) 1 (2.8) 1.000
 Others 4 (8.9) 13 (28.9) 0.029 6 (16.7) 9 (25) 0.563
Risk (cyto)/no. (%)
 Good 12 (26.7) 1 (2.2) 0.002 5 (13.9) 1 (2.8) 0.199
 Intermediate 20 (44.4) 30 (66.7) 0.056 17 (47.2) 24 (66.7) 0.153
 Poor 13 (28.9) 12 (26.7) 1.000 13 (36.1) 11 (30.6) 0.803
 Others 0 (0.0) 2 (4.4) 0.494 1 (2.8) 0 (0.0) 1.000
FLT3-ITD/no. (%)    1.000    0.396
 Presence 8 (17.8) 8 (17.8)   6 (16.7) 10 (27.8)  
 Absence 37 (82.2) 37 (82.2)   30 (83.3) 26 (72.2)  
NPM1/no. (%)    0.367    0.430
 Presence 12 (26.7) 17 (37.8)   8 (22.2) 12 (33.3)  
 Absence 33 (73.3) 28 (62.2)   28 (77.8) 24 (66.7)  
DNMT3A/no. (%)    0.059    0.415
 Presence 8 (17.8) 17 (37.8)   7 (19.4) 11 (30.6)  
 Absence 37 (82.2) 28 (62.2)   29 (80.6) 25 (69.4)  
RUNX1/no. (%)    0.058    1.000
 Presence 1 (2.2) 7 (15.6)   4 (11.1) 4 (11.1)  
 Absence 44 (97.8) 38 (84.4)   32 (88.9) 32 (88.9)  
MLL-PTD/no. (%)    1.000    0.115
 Presence 2 (4.4) 3 (6.7)   4 (11.1) 0 (0.0)  
 Absence 43 (95.6) 42 (93.3)   32 (88.9) 36 (100.0)  
TP53/no. (%)    1.000    1.000
 Mutation 5 (11.1) 5 (11.1)   2 (5.6) 2 (5.6)  
 Wild type 40 (88.9) 40 (88.9)   34 (94.4) 34 (94.4)  
CEBPA/no. (%)    1.000    1.000
 Mutation 2 (4.4) 1 (2.2)   4 (11.1) 4 (11.1)  
 Wild type 43 (95.6) 44 (97.8)   32 (89.9) 32 (88.9)  
IDH1/no. (%)    0.012012    0.514
 Mutation 0 (0.0) 7 (15.6)   4 (11.1) 7 (19.4)  
 Wild type 45 (100.0) 38 (84.4)   32 (88.9) 29 (80.6)  
IDH2/no. (%)    1.000    0.710
 Mutation 4 (8.9) 5 (11.1)   3 (8.3) 5 (13.9)  
 Wild type 41 (91.1) 40 (88.9)   33 (91.7) 31 (86.1)  
  1. WBC white blood cell, BM bone marrow, PB peripheral blood, FAB French–American–British classification, MLL mixed-lineage leukemia, FLT3-ITD internal tandem duplication of the FLT3 gene, NPM1 nucleophosmin, DNMT3A DNA methyltransferase 3A, RUNX1 runt related transcription factor 1, MLL-PTD partial tandem duplication of the MLL gene, CEBPA CCAAT/enhancerbinding protein α, IDH isocitrate dehydrogenase
  2. The median expression level of miR-425 was used to define high- and low-miR-425-expression groups. P values for continuous variables are from Mann–Whitney test; P values for categorical variables are from Chi square tests. The values represent frequencies (%). Complex karyotype is defined as more than or equal to 3 chromosomal abnormalities. The patients were divided into three risk groups (good, intermediate and poor) according to the cytogenetic risk classification
Back to article page

Journal of Translational Medicine

ISSN: 1479-5876

Contact us