AML multi-gene panel testing: A review and comparison of two gene panels

被引:7
|
作者
Thakral, G. [1 ]
Vierkoetter, K. [1 ]
Namiki, S. [2 ]
Lawicki, S. [1 ]
Fernandez, X. [1 ]
Ige, K. [3 ]
kawahara, W. [4 ]
Lum, C. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Hawaii, Dept Pathol, Honolulu, HI 96822 USA
[2] Hawaii Pathologists Lab, Honolulu, HI USA
[3] Washington Univ, St Louis, MO USA
[4] Tufts Univ, Boston, MA 02111 USA
关键词
AML; Gene panel; Screening; Next-generation sequencing; Detection; Prognosis; ACUTE MYELOID-LEUKEMIA; INTERNAL TANDEM DUPLICATION; MURINE NEUROBLASTOMA-CELLS; ACUTE MYELOGENOUS LEUKEMIA; ISOCITRATE-DEHYDROGENASE; MIXED-LINEAGE LEUKEMIA; DNMT3A MUTATIONS; ADULT PATIENTS; MYELODYSPLASTIC SYNDROMES; CLINICAL-IMPLICATIONS;
D O I
10.1016/j.prp.2016.02.004
中图分类号
R36 [病理学];
学科分类号
100104 ;
摘要
Background/objective: Risk adapted therapy is standard practice in Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML). A common diagnostic approach involves focusing on a three gene panel (CEPBA, FLT3, and NPM1). However, a complete representation of prognostic and predictive factors in AML necessitates an expanded series of genes, due to the dynamic interactions present between concurrent mutations. Hence, the current study aims to describe the benefits of an expanded risk profile in an unselected cohort of AML cases. Methods: The genomes of 11 randomly selected patients with AML were sequenced using next generation sequencing. A narrow three gene panel and broader 50 gene panel were contrasted. Results: The expanded gene panel detected one additional pathogenic mutation in five patients and two pathogenic mutations in two patients, resulting in a change in their risk profile. Only 5/11 (45%) of AML patients demonstrated a pathogenic mutation on the 3 gene profile, however all patients had at least one detectable pathogenic mutation on the broader gene panel. The detection of a concurrent mutation by the expanded gene panel reversed the favorable risk profile for three patients. Conclusions: Detection of concurrent mutations enables rejection or validation of prognoses associated with NPM1 or CEBPA mutations. DNMT3a and TP53 mutations in AML have a pertinent prognostic and therapeutic value for patients and their addition enhances the current three gene panel. In our small study, the three gene panel changed the prognosis for three patients (3/11, 27%) with the detection of commonly occurring AML mutations. (C) 2016 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:372 / 380
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Two Cases of Pediatric Rhabdomyosarcoma Diagnosed with Li-Fraumeni Syndrome by Multi-Gene Panel Testing for Cancer
    Chikaraishi, Koji
    Hino, Moeko
    Yamashita, Yoshiharu
    Okunushi, Tomoko
    Hattori, Shinya
    Nakata, Mitsuyuki
    Utsuno, Emi
    Ichikawa, Tomohiko
    Hishiki, Tomoro
    Hamada, Hiromichi
    PEDIATRIC BLOOD & CANCER, 2021, 68
  • [32] Cross-institutional case review of multi-gene panel testing for risk assessments and diagnosis of hereditary tumors
    Yamamoto, Hideki
    Fijita, Hiroko
    Tamura, Kazuo
    Urakawa, Yusaku
    Futagawa, Mashu
    Sogawa, Reimi
    Kato, Fumino
    Ueno, Sayaka
    Shigeyasu, Kunitoshi
    Haraga, Junko
    Ogawa, Chikako
    Kochi, Mariko
    Fukano, Chika
    Kai, Kyohei
    Shiozaki, Shigehiro
    Hirasawa, Akira
    CANCER SCIENCE, 2024, 115 : 821 - 821
  • [33] Comparison of the Diagnostic Yield of Comprehensive and Phenotypically Driven Multi-Gene Panels for Neuromuscular Disorders
    Lindy, Amanda
    Bradbury, Margaret
    Suchy, Sharon
    McKnight, Dianlee
    NEUROLOGY, 2016, 86
  • [34] SINGLE-GENE VS. MULTI-GENE PANEL TESTING IN MANAGEMENT OF HEREDITARY GASTROINTESTINAL CANCER SYNDROMES
    Wang, Louise
    Nathanson, John T.
    Long, Jessica
    Ebrahimzadeh, Jessica
    Kumar, Shria
    Wangensteen, Kirk J.
    Katona, Bryson W.
    Rustgi, Anil K.
    GASTROENTEROLOGY, 2019, 156 (06) : S1086 - S1086
  • [35] Clinical validity assessment of genes for inclusion in multi-gene panel testing: A systematic approach
    Zion, Tricia N.
    Wayburn, Bess
    Darabi, Sourat
    Thrush, Devon Lamb
    Smith, Erica D.
    Johnston, Tami
    Martin, Brissa
    Hagman, Kelly D. F.
    Parra, Melissa
    Antolik, Christian
    MOLECULAR GENETICS & GENOMIC MEDICINE, 2019, 7 (05):
  • [36] Multi-gene panel testing confirms phenotypic variability in MUTYH-Associated Polyposis
    Sutcliffe, Erin G.
    Thompson, Amanda Bartenbaker
    Stettner, Amy R.
    Marshall, Megan L.
    Roberts, Maegan E.
    Susswein, Lisa R.
    Wang, Ying
    Klein, Rachel T.
    Hruska, Kathleen S.
    Solomon, Benjamin D.
    FAMILIAL CANCER, 2019, 18 (02) : 203 - 209
  • [37] Multi-gene panel testing and association analysis in Cypriot breast cancer cases and controls
    Zanti, Maria
    Loizidou, Maria A.
    O'Mahony, Denise G.
    Dorling, Leila
    Dennis, Joe
    Devilee, Peter
    Easton, Douglas F.
    Panayiotidis, Mihalis I.
    Hadjisavvas, Andreas
    Michailidou, Kyriaki
    FRONTIERS IN GENETICS, 2023, 14
  • [38] Multi-gene panel testing for hereditary cancer susceptibility in a rural Familial Cancer Program
    David J. Hermel
    Wendy C. McKinnon
    Marie E. Wood
    Marc S. Greenblatt
    Familial Cancer, 2017, 16 : 159 - 166
  • [39] Multi-gene panel testing for hereditary cancer susceptibility in a rural Familial Cancer Program
    Hermel, David J.
    McKinnon, Wendy C.
    Wood, Marie E.
    Greenblatt, Marc S.
    FAMILIAL CANCER, 2017, 16 (01) : 159 - 166
  • [40] Multi-gene panel testing and the cancers identified in patients at risk for hereditary breast cancer
    Kapoor, N. S.
    Curcio, L. D.
    Patrick, M.
    Swisher, J.
    West, J. D.
    Banks, K.
    CANCER RESEARCH, 2016, 76