Patil, Shivanand R.

Abstract Objective. —To assemble and interpret karyotype data provided as part of the College of American Pathologists/American College of Medical Genetics Cytogenetics Proficiency Testing Program. Data Sources, Extraction, and Synthesis. —The Cytogenetics Resource Committee requested data on all cells analyzed in a 1994 whole-blood specimen challenge. In that study, 287 participating laboratories analyzed a total of 14297 cells derived from a sample drawn from an adult donor with Turner syndrome. This individual had previously been found to have mosaicism, including cell lines with X structural anomalies along with monosomy X, making this an excellent challenge for a multicenter cytogenetic survey. Results and Conclusions. —Analysis of the data from this extensive study revealed mosaicism of up to 10 different sex chromosome complements involving the X chromosome with and without a small ring X or a derivative X chromosome. In the routine cytogenetic analysis performed by the participating laboratories, cell lines observed, in decreasing order of prevalence, included 45,X (n = 8357 cells), 46,X,r(X) (n = 3597), 46,X,der( X )t( X ;X) (n = 2237), 46,XX (n = 93), 47,X,r(X),r(X) (n = 5), 47,X,der( X )t( X ;X),der( X )t( X ;X) (n = 3), 47,XX,r(X) (n = 2), and one observation each of 47,XX,der( X )t( X ;X), 47,X,der( X )t( X ;X),r(X), and 47,XXX. Our molecular cytogenetic data, as well as detailed analysis of G-banded chromosomes, suggest the nomenclature for these 2 abnormal X chromosomes as r(X)(p11.3q21.3) and der( X )t( X ;X)(p11.3;q21.3), and we discuss models for the concomitant formation of these 2 entities. Both the degree of analysis and the extensive mosaicism that was discovered in this study are exceptional, and similar reported cases as well as possible mechanisms for the observed X chromosome instability are reviewed.

Abstract The dic(9;12)(p12;p11.2) has been described as a rare cytogenetic abnormality in pediatric precursor B-cell ALL. Initial studies suggested that the rearrangement is associated with a favorable outcome, and recent studies demonstrated the presence of a PAX5-ETV6 fusion gene was associated with this cytogenetic abnormality. Twenty cases with a cytogenetic dic(9;12) were identified in the Children’s Oncology Group (COG) cytogenetics databases. FISH analysis with the ETV6-RUNX1 (TEL-AML1) probes was done on 12 of these samples. Five cases were positive for fusion, indicating a cryptic t(12;21)(p13;q22), and also had loss of the ETV6 probe from the chromosome 12 not involved in the t(12;21). Seven cases were negative for fusion and had loss of an ETV6 signal, although one of the latter had a diminished ETV6 signal identified. To determine whether both PAX5-ETV6 and ETV6-RUNX1 rearrangements occurred in some patients, a diagnostic sample from each patient was analyzed by RT-PCR for the PAX5-ETV6 and ETV6-RUNX1 fusion genes. Primers from exon 3 of PAX5 and exon 3 of ETV6 were used for the PAX5-ETV6 analysis and from exon 5 of ETV6 and exon 4 of RUNX1 for the ETV6-RUNX1 analysis. Of the 20 cases, only 8 were RT-PCR positive for the PAX5-ETV6 fusion with the above primers; however, an additional 2 were RT-PCR positive with alternate primers, and all 10 of these were negative for the ETV6-RUNX1 fusion by RT-PCR. Of the remaining 10 patients, 9 were RT-PCR positive for the ETV6-RUNX1 fusion, including all of the ETV6-RUNX1 cases positive by FISH. The gene rearrangement associated with the dic(9;12) in these cases is not known. One patient was negative for both fusions by RT-PCR, negative by FISH for ETV6-RUNX1 rearrangement, yet had loss of an ETV6 signal. No cytogenetic differences could be seen between the 2 groups, either in the appearance of the dic(9;12) or in the other abnormalities identified. These results demonstrate the presence of two mutually exclusive dic(9;12) rearrangements in pediatric ALL; one associated with ETV6-RUNX1 rearrangement and one resulting in PAX5-ETV6 fusion. Both PAX5-ETV6 and ETV6-RUNX1 rearrangements are associated with a favorable prognosis. However, molecular analysis of the dic(9;12) patients must be performed to determine whether the dicentric chromosome results in PAX5-ETV6 fusion or whether the case has ETV6-RUNX1 fusion.

Purpose To evaluate the prognostic significance of the international European LeukemiaNet (ELN) guidelines for reporting genetic alterations in acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Patients and Methods We analyzed 1,550 adults with primary AML, treated on Cancer and Leukemia Group B first-line trials, who had pretreatment cytogenetics and, for cytogenetically normal patients, mutational status of NPM1, CEBPA, and FLT3 available. We compared complete remission (CR) rates, disease-free survival (DFS), and overall survival (OS) among patients classified into the four ELN genetic groups (favorable, intermediate-I, intermediate-II, adverse) separately for 818 younger (age < 60 years) and 732 older (age ≥ 60 years) patients. Results The percentages of younger versus older patients in the favorable (41% v 20%; P < .001), intermediate-II (19% v 30%; P < .001), and adverse (22% v 31%; P < .001) genetic groups differed. The favorable group had the best and the adverse group the worst CR rates, DFS, and OS in both age groups. Both intermediate groups had significantly worse outcomes than the favorable but better than the adverse group. Intermediate-I and intermediate-II groups in older patients had similar outcomes, whereas the intermediate-II group in younger patients had better OS but not better CR rates or DFS than the intermediate-I group. The prognostic significance of ELN classification was confirmed by multivariable analyses. For each ELN group, older patients had worse outcomes than younger patients. Conclusion The ELN classification clearly separates the genetic groups by outcome, supporting its use for risk stratification in clinical trials. Because they have different proportions of genetic alterations and outcomes, younger and older patients should be reported separately when using the ELN classification.