Comparison of cytogenetic and molecular genetic detection of t(8;21) and inv(16) in a prospective series of adults with de novo acute myeloid leukemia: a Cancer and Leukemia Group B Study

J Clin Oncol. 2001 May 1;19(9):2482-92. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2001.19.9.2482.

Abstract

Purpose: To prospectively compare cytogenetics and reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) for detection of t(8;21)(q22;q22) and inv(16)(p13q22)/t(16;16)(p13;q22), aberrations characteristic of core-binding factor (CBF) acute myeloid leukemia (AML), in 284 adults newly diagnosed with primary AML.

Patients and methods: Cytogenetic analyses were performed at local laboratories, with results reviewed centrally. RT-PCR for AML1/ETO and CBFbeta/MYH11 was performed centrally.

Results: CBF AML was ultimately identified in 48 patients: 21 had t(8;21) or its variant and AML1/ETO, and 27 had inv(16)/t(16;16), CBFbeta/MYH11, or both. Initial cytogenetic and RT-PCR analyses correctly classified 95.7% and 96.1% of patients, respectively (P =.83). Initial cytogenetic results were considered to be false-negative in three AML1/ETO-positive patients with unique variants of t(8;21), and in three CBFbeta/MYH11-positive patients with, respectively, an isolated +22; del(16)(q22),+22; and a normal karyotype. The latter three patients were later confirmed to have inv(16)/t(16;16) cytogenetically. Only one of 124 patients reported initially as cytogenetically normal was ultimately RT-PCR-positive. There was no false-positive cytogenetic result. Initial RT-PCR was falsely negative in two patients with inv(16) and falsely positive for AML1/ETO in two and for CBFbeta/MYH11 in another two patients. Two patients with del(16)(q22) were found to be CBFbeta/MYH11-negative. M4Eo marrow morphology was a good predictor of the presence of inv(16)/t(16;16).

Conclusion: Patients with t(8;21) or inv(16) can be successfully identified in prospective multi-institutional clinical trials. Both cytogenetics and RT-PCR detect most such patients, although each method has limitations. RT-PCR is required when the cytogenetic study fails; it is also required to determine whether patients with suspected variants of t(8;21), del(16)(q22), or +22 represent CBF AML. RT-PCR should not replace cytogenetics and should not be used as the only diagnostic test for detection of CBF AML because of the possibility of obtaining false-positive or false-negative results.

Publication types

  • Comparative Study
  • Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
  • Research Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S.

MeSH terms

  • Adult
  • Chromosome Inversion*
  • Chromosomes, Human, Pair 16*
  • Chromosomes, Human, Pair 21*
  • Chromosomes, Human, Pair 8*
  • Core Binding Factor Alpha 2 Subunit
  • DNA-Binding Proteins / genetics
  • Female
  • Humans
  • Male
  • Middle Aged
  • Prospective Studies
  • Proto-Oncogene Proteins*
  • RUNX1 Translocation Partner 1 Protein
  • Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction
  • Transcription Factors / genetics
  • Translocation, Genetic*

Substances

  • Core Binding Factor Alpha 2 Subunit
  • DNA-Binding Proteins
  • Proto-Oncogene Proteins
  • RUNX1 Translocation Partner 1 Protein
  • RUNX1 protein, human
  • RUNX1T1 protein, human
  • Transcription Factors