Comparison of cytogenetic and molecular genetic detection of t(8;21) and inv(16) in a prospective series of adults with de novo acute myeloid leukemia

A cancer and leukemia group B study

K. Mrózek, T. W. Prior, C. Edwards, G. Marcucci, A. J. Carroll, P. J. Snyder, P. R K Koduru, K. S. Theil, M. J. Pettenati, K. J. Archer, M. A. Caligiuri, J. W. Vardiman, J. E. Kolitz, R. A. Larson, C. D. Bloomfield

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

96 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: To prospectively compare cytogenetics and reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) for detection of t(8;21)(q22;q22) and inv(16)(p13q22)/t(16;16)(p13;q22), aberrations characteristic of core-binding factor (CBF) acute myeloid leukemia (AML), in 284 adults newly diagnosed with primary AML. Patients and Methods: Cytogenetic analyses were performed at local laboratories, with results reviewed centrally. RT-PCR for AML 1/ETO and CBFβ/MYH11 was performed centrally. Results: CBF AML was ultimately identified in 48 patients: 21 had t(8;21) or its variant and AML1/ETO, and 27 had inv(16)/t(16;16), CBFβ/MYH11, or both. Initial cytogenetic and RT-PCR analyses correctly classified 95.7% and 96.1% of patients, respectively (P = .83). Initial cytogenetic results were considered to be false-negative in three AML1/ETO-positive patients with unique variants of t(8;21), and in three CBFβ/ MYH11/-positive patients with, respectively, an isolated +22; del(16)(q22),+22; and a normal karyotype. The latter three patients were later confirmed to have inv(16)/t(16;16) cytogenetically. Only one of 124 patients reported initially as cytogenetically normal was ultimately RT-PCR-positive. There was no false-positive cytogenetic result. Initial RT-PCR was falsely negative in two patients with inv(16) and falsely positive for AML1/ETO in two and for CBFβ/MYH11 in another two patients. Two patients with del(16)(q22) were found to be CBFβ/MYH11-negative. M4Eo marrow morphology was a good predictor of the presence of inv(16)/t(16;16). Conclusion: Patients with t(8;21) or inv(16) can be successfully identified in prospective multi-institutional clinical trials. Both cytogenetics and RT-PCR detect most such patients, although each method has limitations. RT-PCR is required when the cytogenetic study fails; it is also required to determine whether patients with suspected variants of t(8;21), del(16)(q22), or +22 represent CBF AML. RT-PCR should not replace cytogenetics and should not be used as the only diagnostic test for detection of CBF AML because of the possibility of obtaining false-positive or false-negative results.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)2482-2492
Number of pages11
JournalJournal of Clinical Oncology
Volume19
Issue number9
StatePublished - May 1 2001

Fingerprint

Core Binding Factors
Acute Myeloid Leukemia
Cytogenetics
Molecular Biology
Leukemia
Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction
Neoplasms
Cytogenetic Analysis
Karyotype
Routine Diagnostic Tests
Bone Marrow
Clinical Trials

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cancer Research
  • Oncology

Cite this

Comparison of cytogenetic and molecular genetic detection of t(8;21) and inv(16) in a prospective series of adults with de novo acute myeloid leukemia : A cancer and leukemia group B study. / Mrózek, K.; Prior, T. W.; Edwards, C.; Marcucci, G.; Carroll, A. J.; Snyder, P. J.; Koduru, P. R K; Theil, K. S.; Pettenati, M. J.; Archer, K. J.; Caligiuri, M. A.; Vardiman, J. W.; Kolitz, J. E.; Larson, R. A.; Bloomfield, C. D.

In: Journal of Clinical Oncology, Vol. 19, No. 9, 01.05.2001, p. 2482-2492.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Mrózek, K, Prior, TW, Edwards, C, Marcucci, G, Carroll, AJ, Snyder, PJ, Koduru, PRK, Theil, KS, Pettenati, MJ, Archer, KJ, Caligiuri, MA, Vardiman, JW, Kolitz, JE, Larson, RA & Bloomfield, CD 2001, 'Comparison of cytogenetic and molecular genetic detection of t(8;21) and inv(16) in a prospective series of adults with de novo acute myeloid leukemia: A cancer and leukemia group B study', Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 19, no. 9, pp. 2482-2492.
Mrózek, K. ; Prior, T. W. ; Edwards, C. ; Marcucci, G. ; Carroll, A. J. ; Snyder, P. J. ; Koduru, P. R K ; Theil, K. S. ; Pettenati, M. J. ; Archer, K. J. ; Caligiuri, M. A. ; Vardiman, J. W. ; Kolitz, J. E. ; Larson, R. A. ; Bloomfield, C. D. / Comparison of cytogenetic and molecular genetic detection of t(8;21) and inv(16) in a prospective series of adults with de novo acute myeloid leukemia : A cancer and leukemia group B study. In: Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2001 ; Vol. 19, No. 9. pp. 2482-2492.
@article{d55c381dc1464b6dbfd0fd58544e2361,
title = "Comparison of cytogenetic and molecular genetic detection of t(8;21) and inv(16) in a prospective series of adults with de novo acute myeloid leukemia: A cancer and leukemia group B study",
abstract = "Purpose: To prospectively compare cytogenetics and reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) for detection of t(8;21)(q22;q22) and inv(16)(p13q22)/t(16;16)(p13;q22), aberrations characteristic of core-binding factor (CBF) acute myeloid leukemia (AML), in 284 adults newly diagnosed with primary AML. Patients and Methods: Cytogenetic analyses were performed at local laboratories, with results reviewed centrally. RT-PCR for AML 1/ETO and CBFβ/MYH11 was performed centrally. Results: CBF AML was ultimately identified in 48 patients: 21 had t(8;21) or its variant and AML1/ETO, and 27 had inv(16)/t(16;16), CBFβ/MYH11, or both. Initial cytogenetic and RT-PCR analyses correctly classified 95.7{\%} and 96.1{\%} of patients, respectively (P = .83). Initial cytogenetic results were considered to be false-negative in three AML1/ETO-positive patients with unique variants of t(8;21), and in three CBFβ/ MYH11/-positive patients with, respectively, an isolated +22; del(16)(q22),+22; and a normal karyotype. The latter three patients were later confirmed to have inv(16)/t(16;16) cytogenetically. Only one of 124 patients reported initially as cytogenetically normal was ultimately RT-PCR-positive. There was no false-positive cytogenetic result. Initial RT-PCR was falsely negative in two patients with inv(16) and falsely positive for AML1/ETO in two and for CBFβ/MYH11 in another two patients. Two patients with del(16)(q22) were found to be CBFβ/MYH11-negative. M4Eo marrow morphology was a good predictor of the presence of inv(16)/t(16;16). Conclusion: Patients with t(8;21) or inv(16) can be successfully identified in prospective multi-institutional clinical trials. Both cytogenetics and RT-PCR detect most such patients, although each method has limitations. RT-PCR is required when the cytogenetic study fails; it is also required to determine whether patients with suspected variants of t(8;21), del(16)(q22), or +22 represent CBF AML. RT-PCR should not replace cytogenetics and should not be used as the only diagnostic test for detection of CBF AML because of the possibility of obtaining false-positive or false-negative results.",
author = "K. Mr{\'o}zek and Prior, {T. W.} and C. Edwards and G. Marcucci and Carroll, {A. J.} and Snyder, {P. J.} and Koduru, {P. R K} and Theil, {K. S.} and Pettenati, {M. J.} and Archer, {K. J.} and Caligiuri, {M. A.} and Vardiman, {J. W.} and Kolitz, {J. E.} and Larson, {R. A.} and Bloomfield, {C. D.}",
year = "2001",
month = "5",
day = "1",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "19",
pages = "2482--2492",
journal = "Journal of Clinical Oncology",
issn = "0732-183X",
publisher = "American Society of Clinical Oncology",
number = "9",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of cytogenetic and molecular genetic detection of t(8;21) and inv(16) in a prospective series of adults with de novo acute myeloid leukemia

T2 - A cancer and leukemia group B study

AU - Mrózek, K.

AU - Prior, T. W.

AU - Edwards, C.

AU - Marcucci, G.

AU - Carroll, A. J.

AU - Snyder, P. J.

AU - Koduru, P. R K

AU - Theil, K. S.

AU - Pettenati, M. J.

AU - Archer, K. J.

AU - Caligiuri, M. A.

AU - Vardiman, J. W.

AU - Kolitz, J. E.

AU - Larson, R. A.

AU - Bloomfield, C. D.

PY - 2001/5/1

Y1 - 2001/5/1

N2 - Purpose: To prospectively compare cytogenetics and reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) for detection of t(8;21)(q22;q22) and inv(16)(p13q22)/t(16;16)(p13;q22), aberrations characteristic of core-binding factor (CBF) acute myeloid leukemia (AML), in 284 adults newly diagnosed with primary AML. Patients and Methods: Cytogenetic analyses were performed at local laboratories, with results reviewed centrally. RT-PCR for AML 1/ETO and CBFβ/MYH11 was performed centrally. Results: CBF AML was ultimately identified in 48 patients: 21 had t(8;21) or its variant and AML1/ETO, and 27 had inv(16)/t(16;16), CBFβ/MYH11, or both. Initial cytogenetic and RT-PCR analyses correctly classified 95.7% and 96.1% of patients, respectively (P = .83). Initial cytogenetic results were considered to be false-negative in three AML1/ETO-positive patients with unique variants of t(8;21), and in three CBFβ/ MYH11/-positive patients with, respectively, an isolated +22; del(16)(q22),+22; and a normal karyotype. The latter three patients were later confirmed to have inv(16)/t(16;16) cytogenetically. Only one of 124 patients reported initially as cytogenetically normal was ultimately RT-PCR-positive. There was no false-positive cytogenetic result. Initial RT-PCR was falsely negative in two patients with inv(16) and falsely positive for AML1/ETO in two and for CBFβ/MYH11 in another two patients. Two patients with del(16)(q22) were found to be CBFβ/MYH11-negative. M4Eo marrow morphology was a good predictor of the presence of inv(16)/t(16;16). Conclusion: Patients with t(8;21) or inv(16) can be successfully identified in prospective multi-institutional clinical trials. Both cytogenetics and RT-PCR detect most such patients, although each method has limitations. RT-PCR is required when the cytogenetic study fails; it is also required to determine whether patients with suspected variants of t(8;21), del(16)(q22), or +22 represent CBF AML. RT-PCR should not replace cytogenetics and should not be used as the only diagnostic test for detection of CBF AML because of the possibility of obtaining false-positive or false-negative results.

AB - Purpose: To prospectively compare cytogenetics and reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) for detection of t(8;21)(q22;q22) and inv(16)(p13q22)/t(16;16)(p13;q22), aberrations characteristic of core-binding factor (CBF) acute myeloid leukemia (AML), in 284 adults newly diagnosed with primary AML. Patients and Methods: Cytogenetic analyses were performed at local laboratories, with results reviewed centrally. RT-PCR for AML 1/ETO and CBFβ/MYH11 was performed centrally. Results: CBF AML was ultimately identified in 48 patients: 21 had t(8;21) or its variant and AML1/ETO, and 27 had inv(16)/t(16;16), CBFβ/MYH11, or both. Initial cytogenetic and RT-PCR analyses correctly classified 95.7% and 96.1% of patients, respectively (P = .83). Initial cytogenetic results were considered to be false-negative in three AML1/ETO-positive patients with unique variants of t(8;21), and in three CBFβ/ MYH11/-positive patients with, respectively, an isolated +22; del(16)(q22),+22; and a normal karyotype. The latter three patients were later confirmed to have inv(16)/t(16;16) cytogenetically. Only one of 124 patients reported initially as cytogenetically normal was ultimately RT-PCR-positive. There was no false-positive cytogenetic result. Initial RT-PCR was falsely negative in two patients with inv(16) and falsely positive for AML1/ETO in two and for CBFβ/MYH11 in another two patients. Two patients with del(16)(q22) were found to be CBFβ/MYH11-negative. M4Eo marrow morphology was a good predictor of the presence of inv(16)/t(16;16). Conclusion: Patients with t(8;21) or inv(16) can be successfully identified in prospective multi-institutional clinical trials. Both cytogenetics and RT-PCR detect most such patients, although each method has limitations. RT-PCR is required when the cytogenetic study fails; it is also required to determine whether patients with suspected variants of t(8;21), del(16)(q22), or +22 represent CBF AML. RT-PCR should not replace cytogenetics and should not be used as the only diagnostic test for detection of CBF AML because of the possibility of obtaining false-positive or false-negative results.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0035339877&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0035339877&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 19

SP - 2482

EP - 2492

JO - Journal of Clinical Oncology

JF - Journal of Clinical Oncology

SN - 0732-183X

IS - 9

ER -