Prognostic importance of <scp>CD</scp>56 expression in intermediate risk acute myeloid leukaemia

Coelho-Silva, Juan Luiz; Carvalho, Luany E; Oliveira, Mayara; França-Neto, Pedro L.; Andrade, Adryanna T; Lima, Aleide S.; Bezerra, Matheus Filgueira; Lima, Marinus M; Neves, Maria Amélia; Fonseca, Julia M; Barros-Correia, Maria C; Machado, Cíntia; Matos, Daniel Mazza; Lucena-Araújo, Antonio R.

doi:10.1111/bjh.13971

Cited by 9 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 9 publications

(12 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We observed aberrant expression of CD56 in 32.1% of the patients of our cohort and thus similar to previous reports . CD16 expression was seen in 42.6% of the cohort, and double CD16+/CD56+ positivity was detected in 21.2% of patients.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

“…With a HRof 2.18, we identified CD16 positivity to have a stronger negative effect than CD56 expression (HR 1.71). The prognostic significance of CD56 expression has been previously reported in AML patients, as well as in other malignancies, and CD56 expression in AML has been associated with poorer outcome and a higher probability of extramedullary disease, at least in some reports . Whereas comprehensive assessments of the prognostic significance have been performed for large panels of antigens in AML patients, the negative impact of CD16 expression has so far not been reported.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…CD56 and CD16, also known as NCAM1 and Fc‐gamma‐RIII, respectively, are immunophenotypic markers commonly expressed on natural killer cells (NK cells) . Previous studies have suggested that aberrant CD56 expression is associated with adverse prognosis in AML patients . In addition, the concept of a myeloid/NK cell phenotype has been assessed for its prognostic significance for CD7+/CD56+ co‐expression and for the HLA‐DR−, CD33+, CD56+, and CD16− phenotype …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Adverse outcome of AML with aberrant CD16 and CD56 NK cell marker expression

Junge

Bacher

Mueller

et al. 2018

Hematological Oncology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Natural killer cells mediate antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity, and CD16 exerts key functions to induce antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity response. Because the prognostic relevance of aberrant CD16 expression in AML patients at diagnosis is unknown, we analyzed 325 AML patients undergoing intensive chemotherapy for aberrant CD16+ and CD56+ natural killer-cell marker expression. CD56+ AML patients had inferior median event-free (EFS; P = 0.0699) and overall survival (OS; 10.9 versus 20.6 months; P = 0.0132). Patients expressing CD16 had worse median EFS (P = 0.0622) and OS (13.0 versus 45.9 months; P = 0.0277). EFS for CD16+/CD56+ patients was 5.7 months compared with 7.1 months for CD16-/CD56- (P = 0.3690), and OS was 10.6 months for CD16+/CD56+ patients compared with 52.2 months for CD16-/CD56- patients (P = 0.0311). Patients with CD16+/CD56+ expression had a lower probability to achieve complete remission after 2 induction cycles (52% versus 72%). Our data suggest that AML patients with aberrant CD16 and CD56 expression have adverse survival outcomes.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Adverse outcome of AML with aberrant CD16 and CD56 NK cell marker expression

Junge

Bacher

Mueller

et al. 2018

Hematological Oncology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This result achieved by Alegretti et al, (2011) in agreement with our results. In addition, Coelho-Silva et al, (2017) showed that there was significant difference regarding CR between CD56 + and CD56groups.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…(Chang et al, 2004) and are less sensitive to standard chemotherapy schemes. Furthermore, co-expression with multidrug resistance (Raspadori et al, 2001) and extramedullary infiltrates (Coelho-Silva et al, 2017) are frequent findings in CD56 + patients and may underlie the adverse outcomes predicted by CD56 antigen. The limitation of this study is the small sample size of the AML patients.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical Significance of CD200 and CD56 Expression in Patients with Acute Myeloid Leukemia

Aref

Abousamra

El-Helaly

et al. 2020

Asian Pac J Cancer Prev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) escape from immunosurveillance by immunosuppression. CD200 and CD56 expression represented an independent prognostic factor in many hematological malignancies but its importance in AML patients remains to be identified. Methods: CD200 and CD56 expression were assessed in the bone marrow blasts for Fifty-two (52) newly diagnosed AML by flowcytometry before start of therapy. Results: CD200 + expression was reported in 28.8% of patients while 17.3% of patients showed CD56 + expression. M4 FAB revealed high frequency of both CD200 + and CD56 + expression. The overall survival of CD200 + patients was 19.2% compared to 35.3% in CD200-(P= 0.049). On the other hand, CD56 + patients had the lowest complete remission rate (22.2% vs. 53.4%). In addition, CD56 + population had significant bad influence on overall survival than those of CD56population (11.1 % vs. 35.5 %, P= 0.047). Conclusions: CD200 and CD56 positive expression by myeloblasts at diagnosis denote poor prognostic indicator and correlated with poor cytogenetic findings. CD200 could be used as therapeutic target in AML.

show abstract