PubMed:11331327 JSONTXT

{"target":"https://pubannotation.org/docs/sourcedb/PubMed/sourceid/11331327","sourcedb":"PubMed","sourceid":"11331327","source_url":"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11331327","text":"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.\nPURPOSE: 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.\nPATIENTS AND METHODS: Cytogenetic analyses were performed at local laboratories, with results reviewed centrally. RT-PCR for AML1/ETO and CBFbeta/MYH11 was performed centrally.\nRESULTS: 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), CBFbeta/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 CBFbeta/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 CBFbeta/MYH11 in another two patients. Two patients with del(16)(q22) were found to be CBFbeta/MYH11-negative. M4Eo marrow morphology was a good predictor of the presence of inv(16)/t(16;16).\nCONCLUSION: 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.","tracks":[{"project":"DisGeNET","denotations":[{"id":"T0","span":{"begin":774,"end":778},"obj":"gene:861"},{"id":"T1","span":{"begin":694,"end":697},"obj":"disease:C0023467"}],"relations":[{"id":"R1","pred":"associated_with","subj":"T0","obj":"T1"}],"namespaces":[{"prefix":"gene","uri":"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene/"},{"prefix":"disease","uri":"http://purl.bioontology.org/ontology/MEDLINEPLUS/"}],"attributes":[{"subj":"T0","pred":"source","obj":"DisGeNET"},{"subj":"T1","pred":"source","obj":"DisGeNET"}]},{"project":"PubMed_Structured_Abstracts","denotations":[{"id":"T1","span":{"begin":198,"end":503},"obj":"OBJECTIVE"},{"id":"T2","span":{"begin":526,"end":680},"obj":"METHODS"},{"id":"T3","span":{"begin":690,"end":1752},"obj":"RESULTS"},{"id":"T4","span":{"begin":1765,"end":2350},"obj":"CONCLUSIONS"}],"attributes":[{"subj":"T1","pred":"source","obj":"PubMed_Structured_Abstracts"},{"subj":"T2","pred":"source","obj":"PubMed_Structured_Abstracts"},{"subj":"T3","pred":"source","obj":"PubMed_Structured_Abstracts"},{"subj":"T4","pred":"source","obj":"PubMed_Structured_Abstracts"}]}],"config":{"attribute types":[{"pred":"source","value type":"selection","values":[{"id":"DisGeNET","color":"#c3ec93","default":true},{"id":"PubMed_Structured_Abstracts","color":"#ec93dd"}]}]}}