Table 1.

Variables used for the determination of the ISAPL

Variables analyzedDichotomization strategyCox proportional hazard modelingInteger weight*
HR (95% CI); P
FLT3-ITD status: mutated vs nonmutated Not applicable 2.88 (1.55-5.35); .001 
KMT2E gene expression: low vs high Q1-Q2 vs Q3-Q4 3.26 (1.18-8.99); .022 
BAALC gene expression: high vs low Q3-Q4 vs Q1-Q2 2.68 (1.04-6.92); .041 
ΔNp73/TAp73 ratio: high vs low Q4 vs Q1-Q3 4.43 (1.83-10.7); .001 
ID1 gene expression: high vs low Q4 vs Q1-Q3 3.41 (1.42-8.22); .006 
ERG gene expression: low vs high Q1 vs Q2-Q4 2.65 (1.15-6.42); .03 
WT1 gene expression: low vs high Q1 vs Q2-Q4 6.78 (0.9-50.7); .061 — 
PRAME gene expression: high vs low Q3-Q4 vs Q1-Q2 1.02 (0.42-2.45); .96 — 
PIM2 gene expression: high vs low Q3-Q4 vs Q1-Q2 1.23 (0.5-2.96); .644 — 
Variables analyzedDichotomization strategyCox proportional hazard modelingInteger weight*
HR (95% CI); P
FLT3-ITD status: mutated vs nonmutated Not applicable 2.88 (1.55-5.35); .001 
KMT2E gene expression: low vs high Q1-Q2 vs Q3-Q4 3.26 (1.18-8.99); .022 
BAALC gene expression: high vs low Q3-Q4 vs Q1-Q2 2.68 (1.04-6.92); .041 
ΔNp73/TAp73 ratio: high vs low Q4 vs Q1-Q3 4.43 (1.83-10.7); .001 
ID1 gene expression: high vs low Q4 vs Q1-Q3 3.41 (1.42-8.22); .006 
ERG gene expression: low vs high Q1 vs Q2-Q4 2.65 (1.15-6.42); .03 
WT1 gene expression: low vs high Q1 vs Q2-Q4 6.78 (0.9-50.7); .061 — 
PRAME gene expression: high vs low Q3-Q4 vs Q1-Q2 1.02 (0.42-2.45); .96 — 
PIM2 gene expression: high vs low Q3-Q4 vs Q1-Q2 1.23 (0.5-2.96); .644 — 
*

Integer weights for the risk score were derived from the Cox proportional hazard model, using overall survival as the end point.

Close Modal

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal