Skip to main content
. 2017 Jul 25;12:55. doi: 10.1186/s13000-017-0634-3

Table 4.

Comparison of diagnostic results obtained by cytogenetic analysis and multi-fusion gene F-qRT-PCR screening

Subtype Cytogenetics F-qRT-PCR
Cyto- Cyto+ % (+) Translocation PCR- PCR+ % (+) Fusion gene
M1 4 0% none 4 0% None
AML M2 1 none 1 None
a 1 90.5% none 1 95.2% RUNX1-RUNX1T1
17 t(8;21)(q22;q22) 17 RUNX1-RUNX1T1
1 t(16;21)(q24;q22) 1 AML1-MDS/EVII/MTG16
1 del(4)(q12) 1 FIP1L1-PDGFRA
AML M3 3 none 3 None
43 93.5% t(15;17)(q22;q12) 43 93.5% PML-RARα
AML M4 2 none 2 None
1 33.3% t(8;21)(q22;q22) 1 33.3% RUNX1-RUNX1T1
AML M5 22 none 22 None
2 12.0% inv(16)(p13;q22) 2 12.0% CBFβ-MYH11
1 t(9;11)(p22;q23) 1 MLL-AF9
AML M6 1 none 1 None
1 50.0% del(1p) 1 50.0% SIL-TAL1
Undecided 3 100.0% inv(16)(p13;q22) 3 100.0% CBFβ-MYH11
3 t(6;11)(q26;q23) 3 MLL-AF6/AF10/ELL/ENL
1 del(1p) 1 SIL-TAL1
subtotal 34 74 68.5% 33 75 69.4%

aBold print indicates cases with inconsistent results obtained using the two diagnostic methods