Figure 4.
Figure 4. Comparative evaluation of age and WBC prognostic significance in t(8;21) and inv(16)/t(16;16) AML. (A) Adjusted P values for DFS according to selected age cutpoints. (B) Adjusted P values for DFS according to selected WBC cutpoints. P values for DFS comparison, after adjustment based on an approximation to the improved Bonferroni inequality,16 are given according to selected age (A) and WBC (B) cutpoints in each CBF-AML subtype. In inv(16)/t(16;16) AML, the optimal age cutpoint was 35 years (adjusted P value = .001). In t(8;21) AML, the optimal WBC cutpoint was 30 × 109/L (adjusted P value = .014).

Comparative evaluation of age and WBC prognostic significance in t(8;21) and inv(16)/t(16;16) AML. (A) Adjusted P values for DFS according to selected age cutpoints. (B) Adjusted P values for DFS according to selected WBC cutpoints. P values for DFS comparison, after adjustment based on an approximation to the improved Bonferroni inequality,16  are given according to selected age (A) and WBC (B) cutpoints in each CBF-AML subtype. In inv(16)/t(16;16) AML, the optimal age cutpoint was 35 years (adjusted P value = .001). In t(8;21) AML, the optimal WBC cutpoint was 30 × 109/L (adjusted P value = .014).

Close Modal

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal