Literature DB >> 27863261

A Next-Generation Sequencing Strategy for Evaluating the Most Common Genetic Abnormalities in Multiple Myeloma.

Cristina Jiménez1, María Jara-Acevedo2, Luis A Corchete1, David Castillo3, Gonzalo R Ordóñez3, María E Sarasquete1, Noemí Puig1, Joaquín Martínez-López4, María I Prieto-Conde1, María García-Álvarez1, María C Chillón1, Ana Balanzategui1, Miguel Alcoceba1, Albert Oriol5, Laura Rosiñol6, Luis Palomera7, Ana I Teruel8, Juan J Lahuerta4, Joan Bladé6, María V Mateos1, Alberto Orfão2, Jesús F San Miguel9, Marcos González10, Norma C Gutiérrez1, Ramón García-Sanz1.   

Abstract

Identification and characterization of genetic alterations are essential for diagnosis of multiple myeloma and may guide therapeutic decisions. Currently, genomic analysis of myeloma to cover the diverse range of alterations with prognostic impact requires fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), single nucleotide polymorphism arrays, and sequencing techniques, which are costly and labor intensive and require large numbers of plasma cells. To overcome these limitations, we designed a targeted-capture next-generation sequencing approach for one-step identification of IGH translocations, V(D)J clonal rearrangements, the IgH isotype, and somatic mutations to rapidly identify risk groups and specific targetable molecular lesions. Forty-eight newly diagnosed myeloma patients were tested with the panel, which included IGH and six genes that are recurrently mutated in myeloma: NRAS, KRAS, HRAS, TP53, MYC, and BRAF. We identified 14 of 17 IGH translocations previously detected by FISH and three confirmed translocations not detected by FISH, with the additional advantage of breakpoint identification, which can be used as a target for evaluating minimal residual disease. IgH subclass and V(D)J rearrangements were identified in 77% and 65% of patients, respectively. Mutation analysis revealed the presence of missense protein-coding alterations in at least one of the evaluating genes in 16 of 48 patients (33%). This method may represent a time- and cost-effective diagnostic method for the molecular characterization of multiple myeloma.
Copyright © 2017 American Society for Investigative Pathology and the Association for Molecular Pathology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27863261     DOI: 10.1016/j.jmoldx.2016.08.004

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Mol Diagn        ISSN: 1525-1578            Impact factor:   5.568


  9 in total

Review 1.  The effect of novel therapies in high-molecular-risk multiple myeloma.

Authors:  Guido Lancman; Douglas Tremblay; Kevin Barley; Bart Barlogie; Hearn Jay Cho; Sundar Jagannath; Deepu Madduri; Erin Moshier; Samir Parekh; Ajai Chari
Journal:  Clin Adv Hematol Oncol       Date:  2017-11

2.  Decitabine and Melphalan Fail to Reactivate p73 in p53 Deficient Myeloma Cells.

Authors:  Pierre-Samuel Gillardin; Géraldine Descamps; Sophie Maiga; Benoit Tessoulin; Hanane Djamai; Benedetta Lucani; David Chiron; Philippe Moreau; Steven Le Gouill; Martine Amiot; Catherine Pellat-Deceunynck; Agnès Moreau-Aubry
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2017-12-23       Impact factor: 5.923

Review 3.  MYC Deregulation in Primary Human Cancers.

Authors:  Manpreet Kalkat; Jason De Melo; Katherine Ashley Hickman; Corey Lourenco; Cornelia Redel; Diana Resetca; Aaliya Tamachi; William B Tu; Linda Z Penn
Journal:  Genes (Basel)       Date:  2017-05-25       Impact factor: 4.096

4.  Application of Next-Generation Sequencing for the Genomic Characterization of Patients with Smoldering Myeloma.

Authors:  Martina Manzoni; Valentina Marchica; Paola Storti; Bachisio Ziccheddu; Gabriella Sammarelli; Giannalisa Todaro; Francesca Pelizzoni; Simone Salerio; Laura Notarfranchi; Alessandra Pompa; Luca Baldini; Niccolò Bolli; Antonino Neri; Nicola Giuliani; Marta Lionetti
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2020-05-23       Impact factor: 6.639

5.  Mate pair sequencing outperforms fluorescence in situ hybridization in the genomic characterization of multiple myeloma.

Authors:  James Smadbeck; Jess F Peterson; Kathryn E Pearce; Beth A Pitel; Andrea Lebron Figueroa; Michael Timm; Dragan Jevremovic; Min Shi; A Keith Stewart; Esteban Braggio; Daniel L Riggs; P Leif Bergsagel; George Vasmatzis; Hutton M Kearney; Nicole L Hoppman; Rhett P Ketterling; Shaji Kumar; S Vincent Rajkumar; Patricia T Greipp; Linda B Baughn
Journal:  Blood Cancer J       Date:  2019-12-16       Impact factor: 11.037

Review 6.  Genome Instability in Multiple Myeloma: Facts and Factors.

Authors:  Anna Y Aksenova; Anna S Zhuk; Artem G Lada; Irina V Zotova; Elena I Stepchenkova; Ivan I Kostroma; Sergey V Gritsaev; Youri I Pavlov
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2021-11-26       Impact factor: 6.639

Review 7.  The future of myeloma precision medicine: integrating the compendium of known drug resistance mechanisms with emerging tumor profiling technologies.

Authors:  Taylor Harding; Linda Baughn; Shaji Kumar; Brian Van Ness
Journal:  Leukemia       Date:  2019-01-25       Impact factor: 11.528

8.  Chromothripsis 18 in multiple myeloma patient with rapid extramedullary relapse.

Authors:  Jan Smetana; Jan Oppelt; Martin Štork; Luděk Pour; Petr Kuglík
Journal:  Mol Cytogenet       Date:  2018-01-18       Impact factor: 2.009

9.  Two Cases of γ-Heavy Chain Disease and a Review of the Literature.

Authors:  I Ramasamy; Z Rudzki
Journal:  Case Rep Hematol       Date:  2018-08-12
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.