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 journalArticlepeer-review

97 Scopus citations

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
DOIs
StatePublished - May 1 2001

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oncology
  • Cancer Research

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of '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'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this