Figure 4.
Clinical outcomes of patients with CRLF2+ Ph-like ALL, non-CRLF2 Ph-like ALL, Ph+ ALL, and B-other ALL. (A) OS, (B) EFS, and (C) remission duration of CRLF2+ Ph-like ALL, non-CRLF2 Ph-like ALL, Ph+ ALL, and B-other ALL. (A) For OS, P for comparison between Ph-like CRLF2+ vs B-other was .001; P for comparison between Ph-like CRLF2+ vs Ph-like non-CRLF2 was .01; all other comparisons were not significant. (B) For EFS, P for comparison between Ph-like CRLF2+ vs B-other was <.001; P for comparison between Ph-like CRLF2+ vs Ph-like non-CRLF2 was .01; P for comparison between Ph-like CRLF2+ vs Ph+ was .02; all other comparisons were not significant. (C) For remission duration, P for comparison between Ph-like CRLF2+ vs B-other was <.001; P for comparison between Ph-like CRLF2+ vs Ph+ was .001; P for comparison between Ph-like non-CRLF2 vs B-other was .03; all other comparisons were not significant.

Clinical outcomes of patients with CRLF2+ Ph-like ALL, non-CRLF2 Ph-like ALL, Ph+ ALL, and B-other ALL. (A) OS, (B) EFS, and (C) remission duration of CRLF2+ Ph-like ALL, non-CRLF2 Ph-like ALL, Ph+ ALL, and B-other ALL. (A) For OS, P for comparison between Ph-like CRLF2+ vs B-other was .001; P for comparison between Ph-like CRLF2+ vs Ph-like non-CRLF2 was .01; all other comparisons were not significant. (B) For EFS, P for comparison between Ph-like CRLF2+ vs B-other was <.001; P for comparison between Ph-like CRLF2+ vs Ph-like non-CRLF2 was .01; P for comparison between Ph-like CRLF2+ vs Ph+ was .02; all other comparisons were not significant. (C) For remission duration, P for comparison between Ph-like CRLF2+ vs B-other was <.001; P for comparison between Ph-like CRLF2+ vs Ph+ was .001; P for comparison between Ph-like non-CRLF2 vs B-other was .03; all other comparisons were not significant.

Close Modal

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal