BACKGROUND: Accurate detection of recurrent chromosomal abnormalities is critical to assign patients to risk-based therapeutic regimens for pediatric acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). PROCEDURE: We investigated the utility of array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) for detection of chromosomal abnormalities compared to standard clinical evaluation with karyotype and fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH). Fifty pediatric ALL diagnostic bone marrows were analyzed by bacterial artificial chromosome (BAC) array and findings compared to standard clinical evaluation. RESULTS: Sensitivity of aCGH was 79% to detect karyotypic findings other than balanced translocations, which cannot be detected by aCGH because they involve no copy number change. aCGH also missed abnormalities occurring in subclones constituting less than 25% of cells. aCGH detected 44 additional abnormalities undetected or misidentified by karyotype with 21 subsequently validated by FISH, including abnormalities in 4 of 10 cases with uninformative cytogenetics. aCGH detected concurrent terminal deletions of both 9p and 20q in three cases, in two of which the 20q deletion was undetected by karyotype. A narrow region of loss at 7p21 was detected in two cases. CONCLUSIONS: aCGH detects the majority of karyotypic findings other than balanced translocations, and may provide key prognostic information in the approximately 35% of cases with uninformative cytogenetics.
BACKGROUND: Accurate detection of recurrent chromosomal abnormalities is critical to assign patients to risk-based therapeutic regimens for pediatric acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). PROCEDURE: We investigated the utility of array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) for detection of chromosomal abnormalities compared to standard clinical evaluation with karyotype and fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH). Fifty pediatric ALL diagnostic bone marrows were analyzed by bacterial artificial chromosome (BAC) array and findings compared to standard clinical evaluation. RESULTS: Sensitivity of aCGH was 79% to detect karyotypic findings other than balanced translocations, which cannot be detected by aCGH because they involve no copy number change. aCGH also missed abnormalities occurring in subclones constituting less than 25% of cells. aCGH detected 44 additional abnormalities undetected or misidentified by karyotype with 21 subsequently validated by FISH, including abnormalities in 4 of 10 cases with uninformative cytogenetics. aCGH detected concurrent terminal deletions of both 9p and 20q in three cases, in two of which the 20q deletion was undetected by karyotype. A narrow region of loss at 7p21 was detected in two cases. CONCLUSIONS: aCGH detects the majority of karyotypic findings other than balanced translocations, and may provide key prognostic information in the approximately 35% of cases with uninformative cytogenetics.
Authors: C Le Caignec; M Boceno; P Saugier-Veber; S Jacquemont; M Joubert; A David; T Frebourg; J M Rival Journal: J Med Genet Date: 2005-02 Impact factor: 6.318
Authors: Christine J Harrison; Anthony V Moorman; Kerry E Barber; Zoë J Broadfield; Kan L Cheung; Rachel L Harris; G Reza Jalali; Hazel M Robinson; Jonathan C Strefford; Adam Stewart; Sarah Wright; Mike Griffiths; Fiona M Ross; Louise Harewood; Mary Martineau Journal: Br J Haematol Date: 2005-05 Impact factor: 6.998
Authors: H Rieder; S Schnittger; H Bodenstein; M Schwonzen; B Wörmann; D Berkovic; W D Ludwig; D Hoelzer; C Fonatsch Journal: Genes Chromosomes Cancer Date: 1995-05 Impact factor: 5.006
Authors: N A Heerema; J B Nachman; H N Sather; M K La; R Hutchinson; B J Lange; B Bostrom; P G Steinherz; P S Gaynon; F M Uckun Journal: Leukemia Date: 2004-05 Impact factor: 11.528
Authors: Meenakshi Mehrotra; Rajyalakshmi Luthra; Farhad Ravandi; Rachel L Sargent; Bedia A Barkoh; Ronald Abraham; Bal Mukund Mishra; L Jeffrey Medeiros; Keyur P Patel Journal: Leuk Lymphoma Date: 2014-11
Authors: Maribel Forero-Castro; Cristina Robledo; Rocío Benito; María Abáigar; Ana África Martín; Maryam Arefi; José Luis Fuster; Natalia de Las Heras; Juan N Rodríguez; Jonathan Quintero; Susana Riesco; Lourdes Hermosín; Ignacio de la Fuente; Isabel Recio; Jordi Ribera; Jorge Labrador; José M Alonso; Carmen Olivier; Magdalena Sierra; Marta Megido; Luis A Corchete-Sánchez; Juana Ciudad Pizarro; Juan Luis García; José M Ribera; Jesús M Hernández-Rivas Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-02-12 Impact factor: 3.240