PURPOSE: Cytogenetics is the primary outcome predictor in acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Metaphase cytogenetics (MC) detects an abnormal karyotype in only half of patients with AML, however. Single nucleotide polymorphism arrays (SNP-A) can detect acquired somatic uniparental disomy (UPD) and other cryptic defects, even in samples deemed normal by MC. We hypothesized that SNP-A will improve detection of chromosomal defects in AML and that this would enhance the prognostic value of MC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed 250K and 6.0 SNP-A analyses on 140 patients with primary (p) and secondary (s) AML and correlated the results with clinical outcomes and Flt-3/nucleophosmin (NPM-1) status. RESULTS: SNP-A is more sensitive than MC in detecting unbalanced lesions (pAML, 65% v 39%, P = .002; and sAML, 78% v 51%, P = .003). Acquired somatic UPD, not detectable by MC, was common in our AML cohort (29% in pAML and 35% in sAML). Patients with SNP-A lesions including acquired somatic UPD exhibited worse overall survival (OS) and event-free survival (EFS) in pAML with normal MC and in pAML/sAML with abnormal MC. SNP-A improved the predictive value of Flt-3 internal tandem duplication/NPM-1 status, with inferior survival seen in patients with additional SNP-A defects. Multivariate analyses confirmed the independent predictive value of SNP-A defects for OS (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.52; 95% CI, 1.29 to 5.22; P = .006) and EFS (HR = 1.72; 95% CI, 1.12 to 3.48; P = .04). CONCLUSION: SNP-A analysis allows enhanced detection of chromosomal abnormalities and provides important prognostic impact in AML.
PURPOSE: Cytogenetics is the primary outcome predictor in acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Metaphase cytogenetics (MC) detects an abnormal karyotype in only half of patients with AML, however. Single nucleotide polymorphism arrays (SNP-A) can detect acquired somatic uniparental disomy (UPD) and other cryptic defects, even in samples deemed normal by MC. We hypothesized that SNP-A will improve detection of chromosomal defects in AML and that this would enhance the prognostic value of MC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed 250K and 6.0 SNP-A analyses on 140 patients with primary (p) and secondary (s) AML and correlated the results with clinical outcomes and Flt-3/nucleophosmin (NPM-1) status. RESULTS:SNP-A is more sensitive than MC in detecting unbalanced lesions (pAML, 65% v 39%, P = .002; and sAML, 78% v 51%, P = .003). Acquired somatic UPD, not detectable by MC, was common in our AML cohort (29% in pAML and 35% in sAML). Patients with SNP-A lesions including acquired somatic UPD exhibited worse overall survival (OS) and event-free survival (EFS) in pAML with normal MC and in pAML/sAML with abnormal MC. SNP-A improved the predictive value of Flt-3 internal tandem duplication/NPM-1 status, with inferior survival seen in patients with additional SNP-A defects. Multivariate analyses confirmed the independent predictive value of SNP-A defects for OS (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.52; 95% CI, 1.29 to 5.22; P = .006) and EFS (HR = 1.72; 95% CI, 1.12 to 3.48; P = .04). CONCLUSION:SNP-A analysis allows enhanced detection of chromosomal abnormalities and provides important prognostic impact in AML.
Authors: M Griffiths; J Mason; M Rindl; S Akiki; D McMullan; V Stinton; H Powell; A Curtis; N Bown; C Craddock Journal: Leukemia Date: 2005-12 Impact factor: 11.528
Authors: Konstanze Döhner; Richard F Schlenk; Marianne Habdank; Claudia Scholl; Frank G Rücker; Andrea Corbacioglu; Lars Bullinger; Stefan Fröhling; Hartmut Döhner Journal: Blood Date: 2005-07-28 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Peter Paschka; Guido Marcucci; Amy S Ruppert; Krzysztof Mrózek; Hankui Chen; Rick A Kittles; Tamara Vukosavljevic; Danilo Perrotti; James W Vardiman; Andrew J Carroll; Jonathan E Kolitz; Richard A Larson; Clara D Bloomfield Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-08-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: K Wheatley; A K Burnett; A H Goldstone; R G Gray; I M Hann; C J Harrison; J K Rees; R F Stevens; H Walker Journal: Br J Haematol Date: 1999-10 Impact factor: 6.998
Authors: Jude Fitzgibbon; Lan-Lan Smith; Manoj Raghavan; Matthew L Smith; Silvana Debernardi; Spyros Skoulakis; Debra Lillington; T Andrew Lister; Bryan D Young Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2005-10-15 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Roel G W Verhaak; Chantal S Goudswaard; Wim van Putten; Maarten A Bijl; Mathijs A Sanders; Wendy Hugens; André G Uitterlinden; Claudia A J Erpelinck; Ruud Delwel; Bob Löwenberg; Peter J M Valk Journal: Blood Date: 2005-08-18 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: D Grimwade; H Walker; F Oliver; K Wheatley; C Harrison; G Harrison; J Rees; I Hann; R Stevens; A Burnett; A Goldstone Journal: Blood Date: 1998-10-01 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Brian A Walker; Paola E Leone; Matthew W Jenner; Cheng Li; David Gonzalez; David C Johnson; Fiona M Ross; Faith E Davies; Gareth J Morgan Journal: Blood Date: 2006-05-16 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Sarah Abu Kar; Anna Jankowska; Hideki Makishima; Valeria Visconte; Andres Jerez; Yuka Sugimoto; Hideki Muramatsu; Fabiola Traina; Manuel Afable; Kathryn Guinta; Ramon V Tiu; Bartlomiej Przychodzen; Hirotoshi Sakaguchi; Seiji Kojima; Mikkael A Sekeres; Alan F List; Michael A McDevitt; Jaroslaw P Maciejewski Journal: Haematologica Date: 2012-07-06 Impact factor: 9.941
Authors: Ramon V Tiu; Lukasz P Gondek; Christine L O'Keefe; Paul Elson; Jungwon Huh; Azim Mohamedali; Austin Kulasekararaj; Anjali S Advani; Ronald Paquette; Alan F List; Mikkael A Sekeres; Michael A McDevitt; Ghulam J Mufti; Jaroslaw P Maciejewski Journal: Blood Date: 2011-02-01 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Christopher J Walker; Jessica Kohlschmidt; Ann-Kathrin Eisfeld; Krzysztof Mrózek; Sandya Liyanarachchi; Chi Song; Deedra Nicolet; James S Blachly; Marius Bill; Dimitrios Papaioannou; Christopher C Oakes; Brian Giacopelli; Luke K Genutis; Sophia E Maharry; Shelley Orwick; Kellie J Archer; Bayard L Powell; Jonathan E Kolitz; Geoffrey L Uy; Eunice S Wang; Andrew J Carroll; Richard M Stone; John C Byrd; Albert de la Chapelle; Clara D Bloomfield Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2019-08-02 Impact factor: 12.531