Mounting evidence underscores the clinical value of cytogenetic analysis in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), particularly as it allows the identification of complex karyotype, that has recently emerged as a prognostic and potentially predictive biomarker. That said, explicit recommendations regarding the methodology and clinical interpretation of either chromosome banding analysis (CBA) or chromosome microarray analysis (CMA) are still lacking. We herein present the consensus of the Cytogenetic Steering Scientific Committee of ERIC, the European Research Initiative on CLL, regarding methodological issues as well as clinical interpretation of CBA/CMA and discuss their relevance in CLL. ERIC considers CBA standardized and feasible for CLL on the condition that standards are met, extending from the use of novel mitogens to the accurate interpretation of the findings. On the other hand, CMA, is also standardized, however, robust data on its clinical utility are still scarce. In conclusion, cytogenetic analysis is not yet mature enough to guide treatment choices in CLL. That notwithstanding, ERIC encourages the wide application of CBA, and potentially also CMA, in clinical trials in order to obtain robust evidence regarding the predictive value of specific cytogenetic profiles towards refining risk stratification and improving the management of patients with CLL.
- Publikační typ
- časopisecké články MeSH
Complex karyotype (CK) identified by chromosome-banding analysis (CBA) has shown prognostic value in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). Genomic arrays offer high-resolution genome-wide detection of copy-number alterations (CNAs) and could therefore be well equipped to detect the presence of a CK. Current knowledge on genomic arrays in CLL is based on outcomes of single center studies, in which different cutoffs for CNA calling were used. To further determine the clinical utility of genomic arrays for CNA assessment in CLL diagnostics, we retrospectively analyzed 2293 arrays from 13 diagnostic laboratories according to established standards. CNAs were found outside regions captured by CLL FISH probes in 34% of patients, and several of them including gains of 8q, deletions of 9p and 18p (p<0.01) were linked to poor outcome after correction for multiple testing. Patients (n=972) could be divided in three distinct prognostic subgroups based on the number of CNAs. Only high genomic complexity (high-GC), defined as ≥5 CNAs emerged as an independent adverse prognosticator on multivariable analysis for time to first treatment (Hazard ratio: 2.15, 95% CI: 1.36-3.41; p=0.001) and overall survival (Hazard ratio: 2.54, 95% CI: 1.54-4.17; p<0.001; n=528). Lowering the size cutoff to 1 Mb in 647 patients did not significantly improve risk assessment. Genomic arrays detected more chromosomal abnormalities and performed at least as well in terms of risk stratification compared to simultaneous chromosome banding analysis as determined in 122 patients. Our findings highlight genomic array as an accurate tool for CLL risk stratification.
