Skip to main content
NCBI home page
The Ulster Medical Journal logoLink to The Ulster Medical Journal
. 2003 May;72(1):16–21.

The prognostic value of FISH as an adjunct to conventional cytogenetics for the detection of cryptic gene rearrangements on chromosome 16. A retrospective investigation of 13 patients from Northern Ireland diagnosed with M4Eo acute myeloid leukaemia.

P McGrattan 1, M W Humphreys 1
PMCID: PMC2475396  PMID: 12868698

Abstract

M4Eo acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) patients with the typical chromosome 16 abnormalities have a favourable prognosis. These subtle 16q22 gene rearrangements can be difficult to detect by conventional cytogenetic methods and if missed could lead to the incorrect assignment of prognostic group and hence subsequent treatment strategies. We retrospectively studied 13 patients diagnosed with M4Eo AML for such chromosome 16 abnormalities comparing conventional cytogenetic (G-banding) and molecular (FISH) methods. G-banded analysis detected only 2 patients with definite chromosome 16 abnormalities whereas FISH detected 4 patients, one with the typical inversion and three with the typical chromosome 16 translocation. FISH analysis also confirmed a false +ve G-banded result in one patient and a false -ve G-banded result in another patient. Finally, FISH confirmed a deletion of one chromosome 16 homologue in another patient indicating a poor prognosis. The overall survival of patients with the typical 16q22 rearrangements (n=4) was also significantly better (P=0.007) than patients with normal chromosome 16 homologues or having other numerical and/or structural abnormalities (n=9). This set of data shows that FISH is a more accurate method for the detection of cryptic 16q22 gene rearrangements and because of the prognostic implications has become a mandatory test along with conventional cytogenetics for all newly diagnosed M4Eo AML patients in Northern Ireland.

Full text

PDF
16

Images in this article

17Fig 1
on p.17
20Fig 3
on p.20

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Baer M. R., Bloomfield C. D. Cytogenetics and oncogenes in leukemia. Curr Opin Oncol. 1992 Feb;4(1):24–32. doi: 10.1097/00001622-199202000-00005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Betts D. R., Rohatiner A. Z., Evans M. L., Rassam S. M., Lister T. A., Gibbons B. Abnormalities of chromosome 16q in myeloid malignancy: 14 new cases and a review of the literature. Leukemia. 1992 Dec;6(12):1250–1256. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Dastugue N., Payen C., Lafage-Pochitaloff M., Bernard P., Leroux D., Huguet-Rigal F., Stoppa A. M., Marit G., Molina L., Michallet M. Prognostic significance of karyotype in de novo adult acute myeloid leukemia. The BGMT group. Leukemia. 1995 Sep;9(9):1491–1498. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Grois N., Nowotny H., Tyl E., Krieger O., Kier P., Haas O. A. Is trisomy 22 in acute myeloid leukemia a primary abnormality or only a secondary change associated with inversion 16? Cancer Genet Cytogenet. 1989 Nov;43(1):119–129. doi: 10.1016/0165-4608(89)90135-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Larson R. A., Williams S. F., Le Beau M. M., Bitter M. A., Vardiman J. W., Rowley J. D. Acute myelomonocytic leukemia with abnormal eosinophils and inv(16) or t(16;16) has a favorable prognosis. Blood. 1986 Dec;68(6):1242–1249. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Le Beau M. M., Larson R. A., Bitter M. A., Vardiman J. W., Golomb H. M., Rowley J. D. Association of an inversion of chromosome 16 with abnormal marrow eosinophils in acute myelomonocytic leukemia. A unique cytogenetic-clinicopathological association. N Engl J Med. 1983 Sep 15;309(11):630–636. doi: 10.1056/NEJM198309153091103. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Marlton P., Keating M., Kantarjian H., Pierce S., O'Brien S., Freireich E. J., Estey E. Cytogenetic and clinical correlates in AML patients with abnormalities of chromosome 16. Leukemia. 1995 Jun;9(6):965–971. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Ohyashiki K., Ohyashiki J. H., Kondo M., Ito H., Toyama K. Chromosome change at 16q22 in nonlymphocytic leukemia: clinical implication on leukemia patients with inv(16) versus del(16). Leukemia. 1988 Jan;2(1):35–40. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Ritter M., Thiede C., Schäkel U., Schmidt M., Alpen B., Pascheberg U., Mohr B., Ehninger G., Neubauer A. Underestimation of inversion (16) in acute myeloid leukaemia using standard cytogenetics as compared with polymerase chain reaction: results of a prospective investigation. Br J Haematol. 1997 Sep;98(4):969–972. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2141.1997.2933107.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Schiffer C. A., Lee E. J., Tomiyasu T., Wiernik P. H., Testa J. R. Prognostic impact of cytogenetic abnormalities in patients with de novo acute nonlymphocytic leukemia. Blood. 1989 Jan;73(1):263–270. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from The Ulster Medical Journal are provided here courtesy of Ulster Medical Society

RESOURCES