Table 6.

Prognostic significance of FISH-detected genetic changes in myeloma.

StudyNo. patientsTherapyGenomic abnormality/FISH probeFrequency, %Median overall survival, mo
Abbreviations: NR, not reached. 
Zojer et al21  104 Conventional chemotherapy 13q34/Rb-1, D13S319 46 24 vs > 60 (P = .008) 
Shaughnessy et al22  231 High-dose therapy x 2 13q34 51 Significantly shorter in del 13 
Fonseca et al15  325 Conventional chemotherapy 13q34/Rb-1, D13S319 54 34.9 vs 51 (P = .021) 
Chiecchio et al23  729 Conventional chemotherapy t(4;14) 12 19 vs 44 (P = .002) 
   t(11;14) 15 NR vs 36 (P = .29) 
   Δ13 48 29 vs 47 (P < .001) 
   17p13 19 vs 43 (P < .001) 
Facon et al24  110 High-dose therapy Δ13/D13S319 38 27 vs 65 (P < .0001) 
Chang et al25  105 High-dose therapy Del 17p13/p53 10 15 vs 48 (P < .0008) 
Drach et al26  72 Conventional chemotherapy Del 17p13/p53 33 newly diagnosed 55 relapsed 13.9 vs 39.7 (P < .0001) 
Keats et al27  208 Conventional chemotherapy t(4;14) 15 21 vs 43 (P = .006) 
StudyNo. patientsTherapyGenomic abnormality/FISH probeFrequency, %Median overall survival, mo
Abbreviations: NR, not reached. 
Zojer et al21  104 Conventional chemotherapy 13q34/Rb-1, D13S319 46 24 vs > 60 (P = .008) 
Shaughnessy et al22  231 High-dose therapy x 2 13q34 51 Significantly shorter in del 13 
Fonseca et al15  325 Conventional chemotherapy 13q34/Rb-1, D13S319 54 34.9 vs 51 (P = .021) 
Chiecchio et al23  729 Conventional chemotherapy t(4;14) 12 19 vs 44 (P = .002) 
   t(11;14) 15 NR vs 36 (P = .29) 
   Δ13 48 29 vs 47 (P < .001) 
   17p13 19 vs 43 (P < .001) 
Facon et al24  110 High-dose therapy Δ13/D13S319 38 27 vs 65 (P < .0001) 
Chang et al25  105 High-dose therapy Del 17p13/p53 10 15 vs 48 (P < .0008) 
Drach et al26  72 Conventional chemotherapy Del 17p13/p53 33 newly diagnosed 55 relapsed 13.9 vs 39.7 (P < .0001) 
Keats et al27  208 Conventional chemotherapy t(4;14) 15 21 vs 43 (P = .006) 

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal