3.8 Article

Genetic diagnosis by comparative genomic hybridization in adult de novo acute myelocytic leukemia

Journal

CANCER GENETICS AND CYTOGENETICS
Volume 153, Issue 1, Pages 16-25

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.cancergencyto.2003.12.011

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A total of 127 adult de novo acute myelocytic leukemia (AML) patients were analyzed by comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) at diagnosis. Conventional cytogenetic analysis (CCA) showed a normal karyotype in 45 cases and an abnormal karyotype in 56 cases; in the remaining cases, CCA either failed to yield sufficient metaphase cells (19/26) or was not done (7/26). Abnormal CGH profiles were identified in 39 patients (30.7%). DNA copy number losses (61%) were high compared to gains (39%), whereas partial chromosome changes (76%) were more common than whole chromosomes changes (24%). Recurrent losses were detected on chromosomes 7, 5q (comprising bands 5q15 to 5q33), 7q (7q32similar toq36), 16q (16q13similar toq21), and 17p, and gains were detected on chromosomes 8, 22, and 3q (comprising bands 3q26.1similar toq27). Furthermore, distinct amplifications were identified in chromosome regions 21q, 13q12similar toq13, and 13q21.1. No cryptic recurrent chromosomal imbalances were identified by CGH in cases with normal karyotypes. The concordance between CGH results and CCA was 72.5%. In the remaining cases, CGH gave additional information compared to CCA (20%) and partially failed to identify the alterations previously detected by CCA (7.5%). The majority of discrepancies arose from the limitations of the CGH technique, such as insensitivity to detect unbalanced chromosomal changes when occurring in a low proportion of cells. CGH increased the detection of unbalanced chromosomal alterations and allowed precise defining of partial or uncharacterized cytogenetical abnormalities. Application of the CGH technique is thus a useful complementary diagnostic tool for CCA in de novo AML cases with abnormal karyotypes or with unsuccessful cytogenetics. (C) 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available