Literature DB >> 26066831

Trisomy 8, a Cytogenetic Abnormality in Myelodysplastic Syndromes, Is Constitutional or Not?

Sílvia Saumell1, Francesc Solé2, Leonor Arenillas3, Julia Montoro4, David Valcárcel4, Carme Pedro5, Carmen Sanzo6, Elisa Luño6, Teresa Giménez7, Montserrat Arnan8, Helena Pomares8, Raquel De Paz9, Beatriz Arrizabalaga10, Andrés Jerez11, Ana B Martínez11, Judith Sánchez-Castro12, Juan D Rodríguez-Gambarte13, José M Raya14, Eduardo Ríos15, María Rodríguez-Rivera3, Blanca Espinet3, Lourdes Florensa3.   

Abstract

Isolated trisomy 8 is not considered presumptive evidence of myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) in cases without minimal morphological criteria. One reason given is that trisomy 8 (+8) can be found as a constitutional mosaicism (cT8M). We tried to clarify the incidence of cT8M in myeloid neoplasms, specifically in MDS, and the diagnostic value of isolated +8 in MDS. Twenty-two MDS and 10 other myeloid neoplasms carrying +8 were studied. Trisomy 8 was determined in peripheral blood by conventional cytogenetics (CC) and on granulocytes, CD3+ lymphocytes and oral mucosa cells by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH). In peripheral blood CC, +8 was seen in 4/32 patients. By FISH, only one patient with chronic myelomonocytic leukemia showed +8 in all cell samples and was interpreted as a cT8M. In our series +8 was acquired in all MDS. Probably, once discarded cT8M by FISH from CD3+ lymphocytes and non-hematological cells, +8 should be considered with enough evidence to MDS.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26066831      PMCID: PMC4466575          DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0129375

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  PLoS One        ISSN: 1932-6203            Impact factor:   3.240


Introduction

Myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) are a heterogeneous group of acquired clonal hematopoietic stem cell disorders with increased risk of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) development. Diagnosis of MDS remains among the most challenging of the myeloid neoplasms and is based on the presence of cytopenia(s), dysplasia in one or more myeloid lineages and less than 20% bone marrow (BM) or peripheral blood (PB) blasts [1,2]. Around 50% of MDS cases presented clonal cytogenetic abnormalities [2]. Trisomy 8 (+8) is the most common chromosome gain in MDS and is present in 5–7% of them [3]. MDS patients with isolated +8 are included in the MDS intermediate cytogenetic risk group according to the new revised IPSS (IPSS-R) [4]. Nevertheless, in contrast to other recurring chromosomal alterations, the presence of +8 as the sole cytogenetic abnormality is not considered definitive evidence for MDS in the absence of morphological criteria [2]. Since trisomy 8 was found as a constitutional mosaicism (cT8M) in healthy people, it was not considered a tumour marker by some authors [5]. However, the incidence of cT8M referred is very low; Nielsen and Wohlert detected one case of cT8M among approximately 35000 live births [6], and Seghezzi et al. found two cases out of 40140 [7]. In addition, some studies suggested that +8 could be present as a cT8M in myeloid malignancies [7-10], and Maserati et al. reported that +8 is constitutional in 15–20% of MDS and acute leukemia [9]. We have analyzed the presence of +8 in granulocytes and CD3+ lymphocytes from PB, as well as in oral mucosa cells from patients diagnosed with MDS carrying +8, in order to clarify the incidence of cT8M in MDS and try to provide a precise diagnostic and prognostic value for isolated +8, especially in cases where there is a degree of doubt.

Methods

A total of 32 patients with +8 were studied from different Spanish hospitals belonging to the Grupo español de síndromes mielodisplásicos (GESMD): 22 diagnosed with MDS and 10 of other myeloid neoplasms. The latter group included four patients with myelodysplastic/ myeloproliferative neoplasm [two chronic myelomonocitic leukemia (CMML) and two refractory anemia with ring sideroblasts and thrombocytosis (RARS-T)] and six patients with AML. Five of the MDS and two of the AML patients had additional cytogenetic alterations to +8 on the bone marrow karyotype. One of the AML had a tetrasomy 8. Furthermore, we also studied 20 healthy controls (12 women and 8 men), with ages ranged between 20–60 years.

Blood Samples

Lymphocytes and granulocytes were isolated from 30mL of PB using standard cell separation protocols. CD3+ cells were isolated from mononuclear cells by immunomagnetic beads (MiltenyiBiotec, Germany). Afterwards, CD3+ cells, as well as granulocytes, were fixed with Carnoy fixative solution (3:1 methanol to acetic acid), and spread on independent slides for fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) studies. The decision to study CD3+ cells was based on the discarted involvement of them in MDS [11-16], their practical accessibility, and the recommendations of other authors for germline analisis in SNP and sequencing studies [17-19].

Oral Mucosa

The oral mucosa was scraped with a sterile cotton swab. Four smears were made by scattering mucosa cells of the swabs over slides. The samples were fixed 10 min in Carnoy solution. Once dried, slides were treated with acetic acid solution (3:2 acetic acid to methanol) at 45°C for 40 min, following with a 10 min digestion in 0.005% pepsin solution (Sigma Aldrich, St Louis, MO) at 37°C, and ending with a dehydratation in 70%, 80% and 100% ethanol wash series.

Karyotype Analysis

Metaphase staining chromosome analysis using phytohemagglutinin (PHA) stimulated cultures of PB were carried out by G-banding technique. At least 15 metaphases were analyzed for each patient. The analysis and nomenclature of the chromosomes were based on International System for Human Cytogenetic Nomenclature (ISCN) of 2013 [20].

Fluorescence in situ Hybridization (FISH)

The centromeric 8 spectrum-orange DNA probe (CEP 8, Vysis, Downers Grove, IL) was applied to CD3+ lymphocytes, granulocytes and oral mucosa cells slides. The hybridization was performed overnight at 37°C. After washing, slides were counterstained with diaminophenylindole (DAPI II). The results of the hybridization were evaluated in a fluorescence microscope. If three signals of the same size and intensity were separated by at least one domain, +8 was considered. Following the European Cytogeneticists Association Specific Constitutional Guidelines [21], +8 mosaicism was assessed in 200 nuclei for CD3+ lymphocytes and granulocytes, and a minimum of 30 mucosa cells were analyzed. According to our laboratory, cutoff points for PB samples as well as for oral mucosa cells were 5%. The study was carried out in accordance with the biomedical Helsinki Declaration of research guidelines and was approved by the Comité Ético de Investigación Clínica (CEIC) Parc de Salut Mar. All participants provided their written informed consent to participate in the study.

Statistical analysis

Overall survival (OS) and time to AML transformation of patients with MDS and +8 were calculated. They were defined to be the time from the MDS diagnosis to death or last follow-up and to development of AML, respectively. Kaplan-Meier method was used to evaluate OS and AML transformation. Data analysis was performed using the R software package (version 3.1.1; R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria).

Results

The patient characteristics are shown in Table 1. Among 22 patients diagnosed with MDS and +8, 17 cases had isolated +8 on BM karyotype at diagnosis, and five had also other additional alterations. Cytogenetic analysis of PB PHA-stimulated cultures revealed +8 in 3 out of 22 patients in 5% to 65% of cells. Using FISH, trisomy 8 was observed in 3% to 74% of granulocytes from all 18 patients studied (4 patients were not studied for extremely neutropenia). Two of them were not considered positive for not reaching our cut off. For CD3+ cells samples, trisomy 8 was seen in 5 out of 22 patients. However, only 4 of them showed trisomy 8 over 5% (6% to 20%). Probably, those cells with +8 detected in CD3+ isolated samples were monocytes due to contamination during cellular isolation (CD3+ cell purity being 76 to 91.1%). None of the oral mucosa cell slides from 20 patients that could be analyzed showed +8, the other two cases could not be analyzed for unsuccessful hybridization.
Table 1

Patient Characteristics.

FLUORESCENCE IN SITU HYBRIDIZATION
CD3+ LYMPHOCYTESGRANULOCYTESMUCOSA
 WHOBONE MARROW KARYOTYPEPB KARYOTYPE (PHA)% cells with +8% of purity% cells with +8% cells with +8N° of cells analyzed
  MDS              
1RA46,XX,del(5)(q13q33)[10]/47,sl,+8[3]/48,sld1,+22[4]/47,XX,+8[5]/46,XX[4]46,XX[20]09620046
2RA47,XY,+8[4]/46,XY[12]46,XY[15]09630100
3RCUD47,XX,+8[11]/46,XX[9]46,XX[20]08874075
4RCMD47,XX,+8[10]/46,XX[10]47,XX,+8[5]/46,XX[15]691.1-0100
5RCMD47,XY,del(5)(q15q33),+8[20]46,XY[15]095-0100
6RCMD47,XY,+8[10]/46,XY[10]46,XY[15]786690100
7RCMD47,XY,+8[7]/46,XY[13]46,XY[15]085-0100
8RCMD47,XY,+8[15]/46,XY[5]48,XY,+8,+21[1]/46,XY[19]2086630100
9RCMD47,XY,+8[16]/46,XY[4]46,XY[20]09030073
10RCMD47,XX,+8[20]/48,sl,+8[1]/46,XX[7]46,XX[15]09231--
11RCMD47,XX,+8[5]/46,XX[15]46,XX[20]089-041
12RCMD47,XY,+8[8]/46,XY[12]46,XY[20]08013050
13RCMD47,XX,+8[5]/46,XX[26]46,XX[15]08230100
14RCMD47,XY,+8[13]/46,XY[7]46,XY[20]07817070
15RCMD47,XX,+8[20]46,XX[20]29260--
16RCMD46,XX,del(5)(q14)[15]/47,XX,+8[2]46,XX[15]0875030
17RCMD47,XY,+8[8]/46,XY[15]46,XY[20]093240100
18RAEB-147,XX,+8[9]/47,sl,i(17)(q10)[9]No metaphases09073076
19RAEB-247,XY,+8[7]/46,XY[13]46,XY[20]09343053
20RAEB-247,XX,+8[2]/46,XX[18]46,XX[20]0896072
21RAEB-245,X,-Y[8]/46,X,-Y,+8[5]46,X,-Y,+8[13]/46,XY[7]096.747054
22MDS-U47,XY,+8[19]/46,XY[1]46,XY[20]107667065
  MDS/MPN        
23RARS-T47,XX,+8[4]/46,XX[23]46,XX[15]093-031
24RARS-T47,XY,+8[3]/46,XY[17]46,XY[15]0878036
25CMML47,XY,+8[20]46,XY[15]884.7-080
26CMML 47,XY,+8[15]/46,XY[5] 47,XY,+8[2]/46,XY[48] 28 93 - 60 100
  AML        
27AML-MDRC47,XY,+8[2]/46,XY[2]46,XY[15]0927041
28AML NOSNo metaphases (FISH+8, 70%)46,XX[15]089---
29AML-MDRC47,XY,+8[20]46,XY[15]09558083
30APL47,XX,+8,t(15;17)(q22;q12)[15] /46,XX [5]46,XX[15]093-0100
31AML NOS48,XY,+8,+8[18]46,XY[15]093.8-0100
32AML-MDRC46,XY,-5,del(7)(q11q35),+8,der(17)t(5;17)(p11;p11)[20]No metaphases084.8-0100

Abbreviations: +8, trisomy 8; PB, peripheral blood; PHA, phytohemagglutinin; RA, refractory anemia; RCUD, refractory cytopenia with unilineage dysplasia; RCMD, refractory cytopenia with multilineage dysplasia; RAEB, RA with excess of blasts; MDS-U, myelodysplastic syndrome unclassified; RARS-T, RA with ringed sideroblasts and thrombocytosis; CMML, chronic myelomonocytic leukemia; AML, acute myeloid leukemia; AML-MDRC, AML with myelodysplasia-related changes; AML NOS, AML not otherwise specified; APL, acute promyelocytic leukemia. In bold patient with constitutional trisomy 8 mosaicism.

Abbreviations: +8, trisomy 8; PB, peripheral blood; PHA, phytohemagglutinin; RA, refractory anemia; RCUD, refractory cytopenia with unilineage dysplasia; RCMD, refractory cytopenia with multilineage dysplasia; RAEB, RA with excess of blasts; MDS-U, myelodysplastic syndrome unclassified; RARS-T, RA with ringed sideroblasts and thrombocytosis; CMML, chronic myelomonocytic leukemia; AML, acute myeloid leukemia; AML-MDRC, AML with myelodysplasia-related changes; AML NOS, AML not otherwise specified; APL, acute promyelocytic leukemia. In bold patient with constitutional trisomy 8 mosaicism. Among the ten patients with other myeloid neoplasms carrying +8, neither patients with RARS-T nor AML ones presented +8 on CD3+ lymphocytes and oral mucosa cells, while one of CMML patients showed trisomy 8 on both of them (CD3+ lymphocytes and oral mucosa cells). For the healthy controls, the median of CD3+ cells with trisomy 8 was 1.3% and no cell from mucosa samples showed trisomy 8.

Outcome analysis

The data of twenty-one patients with MDS and +8 were available for Kaplan-Meier analysis. Twelve patients died and five evolved to AML with a median follow up of 38.2 months (range, 2.6 to 92.3 months). The median OS and median time to AML transformation for MDS with isolated +8 were 85.9 and 2.8 months, respectively. No statistically significant differences in median OS were found between MDS with isolated +8 and MDS with +8 and another additional aberration.

Discussion

MDS are associated with clonal cytogenetic abnormalities in around 50% of patients [2] being trisomy 8 the most common chromosome gain. According to the IPSS-R, isolated trisomy 8 is included in the intermediate cytogenetic risk group [4]. The current analysis with 22 patients diagnosed of MDS with isolated +8 and selected to be alive at the inclusion moment showed a longer overall survival (median, 85.9 months) than expected. However, in our previous study of 72 MDS with isolated +8 patients from GESMDregistry, the median overall survival was 34.3 months [3], demonstrating the intermediate risk confered by trisomy 8 to MDS and in agreement with IPSS-R. In contrast to other recurring chromosomal alterations, isolated +8 is not considered presumptive evidence of MDS when minimal morphological criteria are lacking [2]. This is in part because +8 may be derived from a constitutional 8 mosaicism. Furthermore, the incidence of cT8M among general population is very low [6,7]. In accordance, none of our healthy controls showed trisomy 8 by FISH. In 2002, Maserati et al. reported that +8 in myelodysplasia and acute leukemia is constitutional in 15–20% [9]. They had analyzed 13 cases of different myeloid neoplasms (including seven MDS) and 1 case of acute lymphoblastic leukemia and reported a cT8M in two of them after applying conventional cytogenetics from PB PHA-stimulated cultures. Nevertheless, in that study the cT8M was confirmed on a skin fibroblasts culture in only one MDS patient. Some other previous studies to determine lineage involvement in MDS, demonstrated that +8 was only found in myeloid lineage (granulocytes, monocytes and erythroblasts) [11-16]. These studies did not analyze non-hematopoietic cells because of their different aim. We evaluated the presence of +8 in 32 patients with different myeloid neoplasms (22 MDS, 2 RARS-T, 2 CMML and 6 AML). In all but one patient, we observed the +8 in myeloid cells and ruled it out in CD3+ lymphocytes and mucosa cells by FISH. Regarding the remaining patient, with +8 in both lymphocytes and mucosa cells, we could consider this alteration as constitutional. We believe that G-banding cytogenetics from PB PHA-stimulated cultures is not useful to discard cT8M, because myeloid cells present in these samples may also divide, giving a false positive result. In fact in our series, karyotype of PB showed +8 in 3 MDS patients but none of them presented +8 in oral mucosa samples. Hence, we consider it mandatory to apply FISH on isolated CD3+ lymphocytes as well as on non-hematological cells as oral mucosa ones for mosaicism studies. In the present project, the study of mucosa cells helps to rule out the germinal nature of trisomy 8 in those cases with residual positive CD3+ cells from samples with low purity. Non-use of the FISH technique on non-hematological cells probably explains the higher cT8M incidence reported from Maserati analyses in a short series with only 7 MDS patients [9]. Moreover, it is interesting to point out that the CMML patient with constitutional +8 had been diagnosed with a Behçet syndrome. Curiously the association between the presence of a cT8M and increased risk of developing Behçet syndrome [22] as well as a high risk of developing myeloid neoplasms [7,8,23], have already been referred. Another argument used against the value of +8 to diagnose MDS is the possible presence of +8 as a seemingly clonal aberration in aplastic anemia (AA), which may disappear after immunosuppressive treatment [24]. Also Maciejewsky et al. have described a clonal evolution to MDS as a late complication of AA [25]. Thus, +8 in the absence of unequivocal dysplasia, would not be of help to differentiate hypocellular MDS from AA, entities that have been suggested to share similar pathogenic process for bone marrow hypocellularity [26]. Furthermore, a significant response rate of MDS with +8 to immunosuppressive therapy is well known [27]. In summary, our study confirms that cT8M should be ruled out using FISH on CD3+ lymphocytes and on non-hematological cells such as oral mucosa ones in MDS, and to the best of our knowledge, is the first study performed under these conditions. Besides this, our results suggest that trisomy 8 is acquired in almost all MDS, and probably, isolated +8 should be considered with enough evidence to diagnose MDS in normo and hypercellular bone marrow cases. Studies with longer series are needed for more decisive conclusions.
  24 in total

1.  Chromosome abnormalities found among 34,910 newborn children: results from a 13-year incidence study in Arhus, Denmark.

Authors:  J Nielsen; M Wohlert
Journal:  Hum Genet       Date:  1991-05       Impact factor: 4.132

2.  Prognostic impact of SNP array karyotyping in myelodysplastic syndromes and related myeloid malignancies.

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

3.  Constitutional trisomy 8 and Behçet syndrome.

Authors:  Kristin Becker; Oliver Fitzgerald; Andrew J Green; Mary Keogan; Ruth Newbury-Ecob; Lynn Greenhalgh; Stephen Withers; Edward J Hollox; Patricia M R Aldred; John A L Armour
Journal:  Am J Med Genet A       Date:  2009-05       Impact factor: 2.802

Review 4.  Myelodysplastic syndromes.

Authors:  Ayalew Tefferi; James W Vardiman
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2009-11-05       Impact factor: 91.245

5.  Constitutional trisomy 8 mosaicism: mechanism of origin, phenotype variability, and risk of malignancies.

Authors:  C Danesino; F Pasquali; C Dellavecchia; E Maserati; A Minelli; L Seghezzi
Journal:  Am J Med Genet       Date:  1998-12-28

6.  Revised international prognostic scoring system for myelodysplastic syndromes.

Authors:  Peter L Greenberg; Heinz Tuechler; Julie Schanz; Guillermo Sanz; Guillermo Garcia-Manero; Francesc Solé; John M Bennett; David Bowen; Pierre Fenaux; Francois Dreyfus; Hagop Kantarjian; Andrea Kuendgen; Alessandro Levis; Luca Malcovati; Mario Cazzola; Jaroslav Cermak; Christa Fonatsch; Michelle M Le Beau; Marilyn L Slovak; Otto Krieger; Michael Luebbert; Jaroslaw Maciejewski; Silvia M M Magalhaes; Yasushi Miyazaki; Michael Pfeilstöcker; Mikkael Sekeres; Wolfgang R Sperr; Reinhard Stauder; Sudhir Tauro; Peter Valent; Teresa Vallespi; Arjan A van de Loosdrecht; Ulrich Germing; Detlef Haase
Journal:  Blood       Date:  2012-06-27       Impact factor: 22.113

7.  Frequent pathway mutations of splicing machinery in myelodysplasia.

Authors:  Kenichi Yoshida; Masashi Sanada; Yuichi Shiraishi; Daniel Nowak; Yasunobu Nagata; Ryo Yamamoto; Yusuke Sato; Aiko Sato-Otsubo; Ayana Kon; Masao Nagasaki; George Chalkidis; Yutaka Suzuki; Masashi Shiosaka; Ryoichiro Kawahata; Tomoyuki Yamaguchi; Makoto Otsu; Naoshi Obara; Mamiko Sakata-Yanagimoto; Ken Ishiyama; Hiraku Mori; Florian Nolte; Wolf-Karsten Hofmann; Shuichi Miyawaki; Sumio Sugano; Claudia Haferlach; H Phillip Koeffler; Lee-Yung Shih; Torsten Haferlach; Shigeru Chiba; Hiromitsu Nakauchi; Satoru Miyano; Seishi Ogawa
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2011-09-11       Impact factor: 49.962

Review 8.  Constitutional trisomy 8p11.21-q11.21 mosaicism: a germline alteration predisposing to myeloid leukaemia.

Authors:  Tim Ripperger; Marcel Tauscher; Inka Praulich; Brigitte Pabst; Andrea Teigler-Schlegel; Allen Yeoh; Gudrun Göhring; Brigitte Schlegelberger; Christian Flotho; Charlotte M Niemeyer; Doris Steinemann
Journal:  Br J Haematol       Date:  2011-08-18       Impact factor: 6.998

Review 9.  Constitutional aneuploidy and cancer predisposition.

Authors:  Ithamar Ganmore; Gil Smooha; Shai Izraeli
Journal:  Hum Mol Genet       Date:  2009-04-15       Impact factor: 6.150

Review 10.  The 2008 revision of the World Health Organization (WHO) classification of myeloid neoplasms and acute leukemia: rationale and important changes.

Authors:  James W Vardiman; Jüergen Thiele; Daniel A Arber; Richard D Brunning; Michael J Borowitz; Anna Porwit; Nancy Lee Harris; Michelle M Le Beau; Eva Hellström-Lindberg; Ayalew Tefferi; Clara D Bloomfield
Journal:  Blood       Date:  2009-04-08       Impact factor: 22.113

View more
  6 in total

Review 1.  Predispositions to Leukemia in Down Syndrome and Other Hereditary Disorders.

Authors:  Satoshi Saida
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Oncol       Date:  2017-07

Review 2.  Cytogenetics analysis as the central point of genetic testing in acute myeloid leukemia (AML): a laboratory perspective for clinical applications.

Authors:  Aliaa Arina Rosli; Adam Azlan; Yaashini Rajasegaran; Yee Yik Mot; Olaf Heidenreich; Narazah Mohd Yusoff; Emmanuel Jairaj Moses
Journal:  Clin Exp Med       Date:  2022-10-13       Impact factor: 5.057

Review 3.  Identifying and treating refractory ITP: difficulty in diagnosis and role of combination treatment.

Authors:  Oriana Miltiadous; Ming Hou; James B Bussel
Journal:  Blood       Date:  2020-02-13       Impact factor: 22.113

4.  Clinical significance of cytogenetic and molecular genetic abnormalities in 634 Chinese patients with myelodysplastic syndromes.

Authors:  Xuefen Yan; Lu Wang; Lingxu Jiang; Yingwan Luo; Peipei Lin; Wenli Yang; Yanling Ren; Liya Ma; Xinping Zhou; Chen Mei; Li Ye; Gaixiang Xu; Weilai Xu; Haiyang Yang; Chenxi Lu; Jie Jin; Hongyan Tong
Journal:  Cancer Med       Date:  2021-02-20       Impact factor: 4.452

Review 5.  Myelodysplastic Syndrome: Diagnosis and Screening.

Authors:  Francisco P Tria; Daphne C Ang; Guang Fan
Journal:  Diagnostics (Basel)       Date:  2022-06-29

Review 6.  Techniques for detecting chromosomal aberrations in myelodysplastic syndromes.

Authors:  Qibin Song; Min Peng; Yuxin Chu; Shiang Huang
Journal:  Oncotarget       Date:  2017-05-09
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.