4.7 Article

SNP array-based karyotyping: differences and similarities between aplastic anemia and hypocellular myelodysplastic syndromes

Journal

BLOOD
Volume 117, Issue 25, Pages 6876-6884

Publisher

AMER SOC HEMATOLOGY
DOI: 10.1182/blood-2010-11-314393

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. NIH [RO1HL-082983, K24 HL-077522]
  2. AA & MDS International Foundation
  3. Robert Duggan Charitable Fund
  4. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI)
  5. Boston University

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In aplastic anemia (AA), contraction of the stem cell pool may result in oligoclonality, while in myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) a single hematopoietic clone often characterized by chromosomal aberrations expands and outcompetes normal stem cells. We analyzed patients with AA (N = 93) and hypocellular MDS (hMDS, N = 24) using single nucleotide polymorphism arrays (SNP-A) complementing routine cytogenetics. We hypothesized that clinically important cryptic clonal aberrations may exist in some patients with BM failure. Combined metaphase and SNP-A karyotyping improved detection of chromosomal lesions: 19% and 54% of AA and hMDS cases harbored clonal abnormalities including copy-neutral loss of heterozygosity (UPD, 7%). Remarkably, lesions involving the HLA locus suggestive of clonal immune escape were found in 3 of 93 patients with AA. In hMDS, additional clonal lesions were detected in 5 (36%) of 14 patients with normal/noninformative routine cytogenetics. In a subset of AA patients studied at presentation, persistent chromosomal genomic lesions were found in 10 of 33, suggesting that the initial diagnosis may have been hMDS. Similarly, using SNP-A, earlier clonal evolution was found in 4 of 7 AA patients followed serially. In sum, our results indicate that SNP-A identify cryptic clonal genomic aberrations in AA and hMDS leading to improved distinction of these disease entities. (Blood. 2011;117(25):6876-6884)

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