Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2014 Jan 6.
Published in final edited form as: Mol Cancer Ther. 2013 Oct 3;12(12):10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-13-0692. doi: 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-13-0692

Figure 4. OS and EFS vs. AML Patients Subgrouped by BIM % Priming Tertiles.

Figure 4

AML patients were stratified by low, medium, and high BIM % priming scores and then analyzed for OS (panel A) and EFS (panel B). Logrank analyses indicates borderline significant associations between OS and BIM(0.1) priming (p=0.037), and EFS and BIM(0.1) priming (p=0.044). For OS, low, medium, and high priming tertiles comprised 19, 18, and 18 patients respectively (total n=55 for which OS data was available; patients who received stem cell transplant were censured). For EFS, low, medium, and high priming tertiles comprised 20, 20, and 21 patients respectively (total n=61 for which EFS data was available).