Cargando…
Chromosome banding analysis and genomic microarrays are both useful but not equivalent methods for genomic complexity risk stratification in chronic lymphocytic leukemia patients
Genome complexity has been associated with poor outcome in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). Previous cooperative studies established five abnormalities as the cut-off that best predicts an adverse evolution by chromosome banding analysis (CBA) and genomic microarrays (GM). However,...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Fondazione Ferrata Storti
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8883543/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33691382 http://dx.doi.org/10.3324/haematol.2020.274456 |
_version_ | 1784659957035040768 |
---|---|
author | Ramos-Campoy, Silvia Puiggros, Anna Beà, Sílvia Bougeon, Sandrine Larráyoz, María José Costa, Dolors Parker, Helen Rigolin, Gian Matteo Ortega, Margarita Blanco, María Laura Collado, Rosa Salgado, Rocío Baumann, Tycho Gimeno, Eva Moreno, Carolina Bosch, Francesc Calvo, Xavier Calasanz, María José Cuneo, Antonio Strefford, Jonathan C. Nguyen-Khac, Florence Oscier, David Haferlach, Claudia Schoumans, Jacqueline Espinet, Blanca |
author_facet | Ramos-Campoy, Silvia Puiggros, Anna Beà, Sílvia Bougeon, Sandrine Larráyoz, María José Costa, Dolors Parker, Helen Rigolin, Gian Matteo Ortega, Margarita Blanco, María Laura Collado, Rosa Salgado, Rocío Baumann, Tycho Gimeno, Eva Moreno, Carolina Bosch, Francesc Calvo, Xavier Calasanz, María José Cuneo, Antonio Strefford, Jonathan C. Nguyen-Khac, Florence Oscier, David Haferlach, Claudia Schoumans, Jacqueline Espinet, Blanca |
author_sort | Ramos-Campoy, Silvia |
collection | PubMed |
description | Genome complexity has been associated with poor outcome in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). Previous cooperative studies established five abnormalities as the cut-off that best predicts an adverse evolution by chromosome banding analysis (CBA) and genomic microarrays (GM). However, data comparing risk stratification by both methods are scarce. Herein, we assessed a cohort of 340 untreated CLL patients highly enriched in cases with complex karyotype (CK) (46.5%) with parallel CBA and GM studies. Abnormalities found by both techniques were compared. Prognostic stratification in three risk groups based on genomic complexity (0-2, 3-4 and ≥5 abnormalities) was also analyzed. No significant differences in the percentage of patients in each group were detected, but only a moderate agreement was observed between methods when focusing on individual cases (κ=0.507; P<0.001). Discordant classification was obtained in 100 patients (29.4%), including 3% classified in opposite risk groups. Most discrepancies were technique-dependent and no greater correlation in the number of abnormalities was achieved when different filtering strategies were applied for GM. Nonetheless, both methods showed a similar concordance index for prediction of time to first treatment (TTFT) (CBA: 0.67 vs. GM: 0.65) and overall survival (CBA: 0.55 vs. GM: 0.57). High complexity maintained its significance in the multivariate analysis for TTFT including TP53 and IGHV status when defined by CBA (hazard ratio [HR] 3.23; P<0.001) and GM (HR 2.74; P<0.001). Our findings suggest that both methods are useful but not equivalent for risk stratification of CLL patients. Validation studies are needed to establish the prognostic value of genome complexity based on GM data in future prospective studies. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8883543 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | Fondazione Ferrata Storti |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-88835432022-03-18 Chromosome banding analysis and genomic microarrays are both useful but not equivalent methods for genomic complexity risk stratification in chronic lymphocytic leukemia patients Ramos-Campoy, Silvia Puiggros, Anna Beà, Sílvia Bougeon, Sandrine Larráyoz, María José Costa, Dolors Parker, Helen Rigolin, Gian Matteo Ortega, Margarita Blanco, María Laura Collado, Rosa Salgado, Rocío Baumann, Tycho Gimeno, Eva Moreno, Carolina Bosch, Francesc Calvo, Xavier Calasanz, María José Cuneo, Antonio Strefford, Jonathan C. Nguyen-Khac, Florence Oscier, David Haferlach, Claudia Schoumans, Jacqueline Espinet, Blanca Haematologica Article Genome complexity has been associated with poor outcome in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). Previous cooperative studies established five abnormalities as the cut-off that best predicts an adverse evolution by chromosome banding analysis (CBA) and genomic microarrays (GM). However, data comparing risk stratification by both methods are scarce. Herein, we assessed a cohort of 340 untreated CLL patients highly enriched in cases with complex karyotype (CK) (46.5%) with parallel CBA and GM studies. Abnormalities found by both techniques were compared. Prognostic stratification in three risk groups based on genomic complexity (0-2, 3-4 and ≥5 abnormalities) was also analyzed. No significant differences in the percentage of patients in each group were detected, but only a moderate agreement was observed between methods when focusing on individual cases (κ=0.507; P<0.001). Discordant classification was obtained in 100 patients (29.4%), including 3% classified in opposite risk groups. Most discrepancies were technique-dependent and no greater correlation in the number of abnormalities was achieved when different filtering strategies were applied for GM. Nonetheless, both methods showed a similar concordance index for prediction of time to first treatment (TTFT) (CBA: 0.67 vs. GM: 0.65) and overall survival (CBA: 0.55 vs. GM: 0.57). High complexity maintained its significance in the multivariate analysis for TTFT including TP53 and IGHV status when defined by CBA (hazard ratio [HR] 3.23; P<0.001) and GM (HR 2.74; P<0.001). Our findings suggest that both methods are useful but not equivalent for risk stratification of CLL patients. Validation studies are needed to establish the prognostic value of genome complexity based on GM data in future prospective studies. Fondazione Ferrata Storti 2021-03-11 /pmc/articles/PMC8883543/ /pubmed/33691382 http://dx.doi.org/10.3324/haematol.2020.274456 Text en Copyright© 2022 Ferrata Storti Foundation https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License (by-nc 4.0) which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited. |
spellingShingle | Article Ramos-Campoy, Silvia Puiggros, Anna Beà, Sílvia Bougeon, Sandrine Larráyoz, María José Costa, Dolors Parker, Helen Rigolin, Gian Matteo Ortega, Margarita Blanco, María Laura Collado, Rosa Salgado, Rocío Baumann, Tycho Gimeno, Eva Moreno, Carolina Bosch, Francesc Calvo, Xavier Calasanz, María José Cuneo, Antonio Strefford, Jonathan C. Nguyen-Khac, Florence Oscier, David Haferlach, Claudia Schoumans, Jacqueline Espinet, Blanca Chromosome banding analysis and genomic microarrays are both useful but not equivalent methods for genomic complexity risk stratification in chronic lymphocytic leukemia patients |
title | Chromosome banding analysis and genomic microarrays are both useful but not equivalent methods for genomic complexity risk stratification in chronic lymphocytic leukemia patients |
title_full | Chromosome banding analysis and genomic microarrays are both useful but not equivalent methods for genomic complexity risk stratification in chronic lymphocytic leukemia patients |
title_fullStr | Chromosome banding analysis and genomic microarrays are both useful but not equivalent methods for genomic complexity risk stratification in chronic lymphocytic leukemia patients |
title_full_unstemmed | Chromosome banding analysis and genomic microarrays are both useful but not equivalent methods for genomic complexity risk stratification in chronic lymphocytic leukemia patients |
title_short | Chromosome banding analysis and genomic microarrays are both useful but not equivalent methods for genomic complexity risk stratification in chronic lymphocytic leukemia patients |
title_sort | chromosome banding analysis and genomic microarrays are both useful but not equivalent methods for genomic complexity risk stratification in chronic lymphocytic leukemia patients |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8883543/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33691382 http://dx.doi.org/10.3324/haematol.2020.274456 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT ramoscampoysilvia chromosomebandinganalysisandgenomicmicroarraysarebothusefulbutnotequivalentmethodsforgenomiccomplexityriskstratificationinchroniclymphocyticleukemiapatients AT puiggrosanna chromosomebandinganalysisandgenomicmicroarraysarebothusefulbutnotequivalentmethodsforgenomiccomplexityriskstratificationinchroniclymphocyticleukemiapatients AT beasilvia chromosomebandinganalysisandgenomicmicroarraysarebothusefulbutnotequivalentmethodsforgenomiccomplexityriskstratificationinchroniclymphocyticleukemiapatients AT bougeonsandrine chromosomebandinganalysisandgenomicmicroarraysarebothusefulbutnotequivalentmethodsforgenomiccomplexityriskstratificationinchroniclymphocyticleukemiapatients AT larrayozmariajose chromosomebandinganalysisandgenomicmicroarraysarebothusefulbutnotequivalentmethodsforgenomiccomplexityriskstratificationinchroniclymphocyticleukemiapatients AT costadolors chromosomebandinganalysisandgenomicmicroarraysarebothusefulbutnotequivalentmethodsforgenomiccomplexityriskstratificationinchroniclymphocyticleukemiapatients AT parkerhelen chromosomebandinganalysisandgenomicmicroarraysarebothusefulbutnotequivalentmethodsforgenomiccomplexityriskstratificationinchroniclymphocyticleukemiapatients AT rigolingianmatteo chromosomebandinganalysisandgenomicmicroarraysarebothusefulbutnotequivalentmethodsforgenomiccomplexityriskstratificationinchroniclymphocyticleukemiapatients AT ortegamargarita chromosomebandinganalysisandgenomicmicroarraysarebothusefulbutnotequivalentmethodsforgenomiccomplexityriskstratificationinchroniclymphocyticleukemiapatients AT blancomarialaura chromosomebandinganalysisandgenomicmicroarraysarebothusefulbutnotequivalentmethodsforgenomiccomplexityriskstratificationinchroniclymphocyticleukemiapatients AT colladorosa chromosomebandinganalysisandgenomicmicroarraysarebothusefulbutnotequivalentmethodsforgenomiccomplexityriskstratificationinchroniclymphocyticleukemiapatients AT salgadorocio chromosomebandinganalysisandgenomicmicroarraysarebothusefulbutnotequivalentmethodsforgenomiccomplexityriskstratificationinchroniclymphocyticleukemiapatients AT baumanntycho chromosomebandinganalysisandgenomicmicroarraysarebothusefulbutnotequivalentmethodsforgenomiccomplexityriskstratificationinchroniclymphocyticleukemiapatients AT gimenoeva chromosomebandinganalysisandgenomicmicroarraysarebothusefulbutnotequivalentmethodsforgenomiccomplexityriskstratificationinchroniclymphocyticleukemiapatients AT morenocarolina chromosomebandinganalysisandgenomicmicroarraysarebothusefulbutnotequivalentmethodsforgenomiccomplexityriskstratificationinchroniclymphocyticleukemiapatients AT boschfrancesc chromosomebandinganalysisandgenomicmicroarraysarebothusefulbutnotequivalentmethodsforgenomiccomplexityriskstratificationinchroniclymphocyticleukemiapatients AT calvoxavier chromosomebandinganalysisandgenomicmicroarraysarebothusefulbutnotequivalentmethodsforgenomiccomplexityriskstratificationinchroniclymphocyticleukemiapatients AT calasanzmariajose chromosomebandinganalysisandgenomicmicroarraysarebothusefulbutnotequivalentmethodsforgenomiccomplexityriskstratificationinchroniclymphocyticleukemiapatients AT cuneoantonio chromosomebandinganalysisandgenomicmicroarraysarebothusefulbutnotequivalentmethodsforgenomiccomplexityriskstratificationinchroniclymphocyticleukemiapatients AT streffordjonathanc chromosomebandinganalysisandgenomicmicroarraysarebothusefulbutnotequivalentmethodsforgenomiccomplexityriskstratificationinchroniclymphocyticleukemiapatients AT nguyenkhacflorence chromosomebandinganalysisandgenomicmicroarraysarebothusefulbutnotequivalentmethodsforgenomiccomplexityriskstratificationinchroniclymphocyticleukemiapatients AT oscierdavid chromosomebandinganalysisandgenomicmicroarraysarebothusefulbutnotequivalentmethodsforgenomiccomplexityriskstratificationinchroniclymphocyticleukemiapatients AT haferlachclaudia chromosomebandinganalysisandgenomicmicroarraysarebothusefulbutnotequivalentmethodsforgenomiccomplexityriskstratificationinchroniclymphocyticleukemiapatients AT schoumansjacqueline chromosomebandinganalysisandgenomicmicroarraysarebothusefulbutnotequivalentmethodsforgenomiccomplexityriskstratificationinchroniclymphocyticleukemiapatients AT espinetblanca chromosomebandinganalysisandgenomicmicroarraysarebothusefulbutnotequivalentmethodsforgenomiccomplexityriskstratificationinchroniclymphocyticleukemiapatients |