Volume 101, Issue 2 pp. 338-340

A study to determine whether trisomy 8, deleted 9q and trisomy 22 are markers of cryptic rearrangements of PML/RARα, AML1/ETO and CBFB/MYH11 respectively in acute myeloid leukaemia

Langabeer

Langabeer

Departments of Haematology, University College London Hospitals and Medical School, London, UK,

Search for more papers by this author
Grimwade

Grimwade

Departments of Haematology, University College London Hospitals and Medical School, London, UK,

Cancer Genetics Laboratory, Guy's Hospital, UMDS, London, UK,

Search for more papers by this author
Walker

Walker

Departments of Haematology, University College London Hospitals and Medical School, London, UK,

Search for more papers by this author
Rogers

Rogers

Departments of Haematology, University College London Hospitals and Medical School, London, UK,

Search for more papers by this author
Burnett

Burnett

Department of Haematology, University of Wales College of Medicine, Cardiff, UK

Search for more papers by this author
Goldstone

Goldstone

Departments of Haematology, University College London Hospitals and Medical School, London, UK,

Search for more papers by this author
Linch

Linch

Departments of Haematology, University College London Hospitals and Medical School, London, UK,

Search for more papers by this author
First published: 03 October 2008
Citations: 26
Professor Linch Department of Haematology, University College London Medical School, 98 Chenies Mews, London WC1E 6HX.

Abstract

Acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) patients with either a t(15;17), t(8;21) or inv(16) at diagnosis have ‘good-risk’ disease with a favourable response to therapy and improved survival. Detection of cryptic fusion genes created by these translocations has been reported where there is no cytogenetic evidence of the corresponding abnormality. It is likely that these cases share the same favourable prognosis. Secondary cytogenetic changes commonly associated with these rearrangements are +8 with t(15;17), del(9q) with t(8;21) and +22 with inv(16). These secondary abnormalities are also observed alone, raising the possibility that they may be markers of underlying cryptic rearrangements. In order to determine the frequency of these rearrangements in AML cases with +8, del(9q) or +22 we have performed an analysis of 63 such patients in whom there was no evidence of a t(15;17), t(8;21) or inv(16) by cytogenetics. No disease-related fusion transcripts were identified, indicating that the secondary changes are rarely markers for cryptic rearrangements.

The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties.