4.6 Article

The genetic landscape of paediatric de novo acute myeloid leukaemia as defined by single nucleotide polymorphism array and exon sequencing of 100 candidate genes

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF HAEMATOLOGY
卷 174, 期 2, 页码 292-301

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/bjh.14056

关键词

paediatric acute myeloid leukaemia; single nucleotide polymorphism array; targeted deep exon sequencing

资金

  1. Swedish Cancer Society
  2. Swedish Childhood Cancer Foundation
  3. Crafoord foundation
  4. Swedish Research Council
  5. Governmental Funding of Clinical Research within the National Health Service

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cytogenetic analyses of a consecutive series of 67 paediatric (median age 8 years; range 0-17) de novo acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) patients revealed aberrations in 55 (82%) cases. The most common subgroups were KMT2A rearrangement (29%), normal karyotype (15%), RUNX1-RUNX1T1 (10%), deletions of 5q, 7q and/or 17p (9%), myeloid leukaemia associated with Down syndrome (7%), PML-RARA (7%) and CBFBMYH11 (5%). Single nucleotide polymorphism array (SNP-A) analysis and exon sequencing of 100 genes, performed in 52 and 40 cases, respectively (39 overlapping), revealed >= 1 aberration in 89%; when adding cytogenetic data, this frequency increased to 98%. Uniparental isodisomies (UPIDs) were detected in 13% and copy number aberrations (CNAs) in 63% (median 2/case); three UPIDs and 22 CNAs were recurrent. Twenty-two genes were targeted by focal CNAs, including AEBP2 and PHF6 deletions and genes involved in AML-associated gene fusions. Deep sequencing identified mutations in 65% of cases (median 1/case). In total, 60 mutations were found in 30 genes, primarily those encoding signalling proteins (47%), transcription factors (25%), or epigenetic modifiers (13%). Twelve genes (BCOR, CEBPA, FLT3, GATA1, KIT, KRAS, NOTCH1, NPM1, NRAS, PTPN11, SMC3 and TP53) were recurrently mutated. We conclude that SNP-A and deep sequencing analyses complement the cytogenetic diagnosis of paediatric AML.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据