Browsing by Author "Granada, Isabel"

Cytogenetics has long represented a critical component in the clinical evaluation of hematologic malignancies. Chromosome banding studies provide a simultaneous snapshot of genome-wide copy number and structural variation, which have been shown to drive tumorigenesis, define diseases, and guide treatment. Technological innovations in sequencing have ushered in our present-day clinical genomics era. With recent publications highlighting novel sequencing technologies as alternatives to conventional cytogenetic approaches, we, an international consortium of laboratory geneticists, pathologists and oncologists, describe herein the advantages and limitations of both conventional chromosome banding and novel sequencing technologies, and share our considerations on crucial next steps to implement these novel technologies in the global clinical setting for a more accurate cytogenetic evaluation, which may provide improved diagnosis and treatment management. Considering the clinical, technical, and economic implications, we provide points to consider for the global evolution of cytogenetic testing.

Purpose The karyotype is a strong independent prognostic factor in myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS). Since the implementation of the International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS) in 1997, knowledge concerning the prognostic impact of abnormalities has increased substantially. The present study proposes a new and comprehensive cytogenetic scoring system based on an international data collection of 2,902 patients. Patients and Methods Patients were included from the German-Austrian MDS Study Group (n = 1,193), the International MDS Risk Analysis Workshop (n = 816), the Spanish Hematological Cytogenetics Working Group (n = 849), and the International Working Group on MDS Cytogenetics (n = 44) databases. Patients with primary MDS and oligoblastic acute myeloid leukemia (AML) after MDS treated with supportive care only were evaluated for overall survival (OS) and AML evolution. Internal validation by bootstrap analysis and external validation in an independent patient cohort were performed to confirm the results. Results In total, 19 cytogenetic categories were defined, providing clear prognostic classification in 91% of all patients. The abnormalities were classified into five prognostic subgroups (P < .001): very good (median OS, 61 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.5; n = 81); good (49 months; HR, 1.0 [reference category]; n = 1,809); intermediate (26 months; HR, 1.6; n = 529); poor (16 months; HR, 2.6; n = 148); and very poor (6 months; HR, 4.2; n = 187). The internal and external validations confirmed the results of the score. Conclusion In conclusion, these data should contribute to the ongoing efforts to update the IPSS by refining the cytogenetic risk categories. J Clin Oncol 30: 820-829. (C) 2012 by American Society of Clinical Oncology