4.7 Article

Chronic myeloid leukemia: a prospective comparison of interphase fluorescence in situ hybridization and chromosome banding analysis for the definition of complete cytogenetic response: a study of the GIMEMA CML WP

Journal

BLOOD
Volume 114, Issue 24, Pages 4939-4943

Publisher

AMER SOC HEMATOLOGY
DOI: 10.1182/blood-2009-07-229864

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Italian Association Against Leukemia-Lymphoma and Myeloma (AIL)
  2. Fondazione del Monte di Bologna e Ravenna
  3. Italian Ministry of Education
  4. University of Bologna
  5. European Union
  6. IRST (Istituto Romagnolo per lo Studio e la Cura dei Tumori)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In chronic myeloid leukemia, different methods are available to monitor the response to therapy: chromosome banding analysis (CBA), interphase fluorescence in situ hybridization (I-FISH), and real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-Q-PCR). The GIMEMA CML WP (Gruppo Italiano Malattie Ematologiche Adulto Chronic Myeloid Leukemia Working Party) has performed a prospective study to compare CBA and I-FISH for the definition of complete cytogenetic re-sponse (CCgR). Samples (n = 664) were evaluated simultaneously by CBA and I-FISH. Of 537 cases in CCgR, the number of positive nuclei by I-FISH was less than 1% in 444 cases (82.7%). Of 451 cases with less than 1% positive nuclei by I-FISH, 444 (98.4%) were classified as CCgR by CBA. The major molecular response rate was significantly greater in cases with I-FISH less than 1% than in those with I-FISH 1% to 5% (66.8% vs 51.6%, P < .001) and in cases with CCgR and I-FISH less than 1% than in cases with CCgR and I-FISH 1% to 5% (66.1% vs 49.4%, P = .004). I-FISH is more sensitive than CBA and can be used to monitor CCgR. With appropriate probes, the cutoff value of I-FISH may be established at 1%. These trials are registered at http://www.clinicaltrials.gov as NCT00514488 and NCT00510926. (Blood. 2009; 114: 4939-4943)

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available