Routine use of microarray-based gene expression profiling to identify patients with low cytogenetic risk acute myeloid leukemia: accurate results can be obtained even with suboptimal samples
Authors:
- Diane Raingeard de la BlétièreDBDiane Raingeard de la Blétière
- Odile BlanchetOBOdile Blanchet
- Pascale Cornillet-LefèbvrePCPascale Cornillet-Lefèbvre
- Anne CoutolleauACAnne Coutolleau
- Laurence BarangerLBLaurence Baranger
- Franck GenevièveFGFranck Geneviève
- Isabelle LuquetILIsabelle Luquet
- Mathilde Hunault-BergerMHMathilde Hunault-Berger
- Annaelle BeucherABAnnaelle Beucher
- Aline Schmidt-TanguyASAline Schmidt-Tanguy
- Marc ZandeckiMZMarc Zandecki
- Yves DelnesteYDYves Delneste
Open Access
- 30 January 2012
- journal article
- Published by Springer Nature in BMC Medical Genomics
- Vol. 5 (1) , 6
Abstract
Background: Gene expression profiling has shown its ability to identify with high accuracy low cytogenetic risk acute myeloid leukemia such as acute promyelocytic leukemia and leukemias with t(8;21) or inv(16). The aim of this gene expression profiling study was to evaluate to what extent suboptimal samples with low leukemic blast load (range, 2-59%) and/or poor quality control criteria could also be correctly identified. Methods: Specific signatures were first defined so that all 71 acute promyelocytic leukemia, leukemia with t(8;21) or inv(16)-AML as well as cytogenetically normal acute myeloid leukemia samples with at least 60% blasts and good quality control criteria were correctly classified (training set). The classifiers were then evaluated for their ability to assign to the expected class 111 samples considered as suboptimal because of a low leukemic blast load (n = 101) and/or poor quality control criteria (n = 10) (test set). Results: With 10-marker classifiers, all training set samples as well as 97 of the 101 test samples with a low blast load, and all 10 samples with poor quality control criteria were correctly classified. Regarding test set samples, the overall error rate of the class prediction was below 4 percent, even though the leukemic blast load was as low as 2%. Sensitivity, specificity, negative and positive predictive values of the class assignments ranged from 91% to 100%. Of note, for acute promyelocytic leukemia and leukemias with t(8;21) or inv(16), the confidence level of the class assignment was influenced by the leukemic blast load. Conclusion: Gene expression profiling and a supervised method requiring 10-marker classifiers enable the identification of favorable cytogenetic risk acute myeloid leukemia even when samples contain low leukemic blast loads or display poor quality control criterion.Keywords
This publication has 33 references indexed in Scilit:
- Impact of RNA degradation on gene expression profilingBMC Medical Genomics, 2010
- Gene expression profiling in AML with normal karyotype can predict mutations for molecular markers and allows novel insights into perturbed biological pathwaysLeukemia, 2010
- Prediction of molecular subtypes in acute myeloid leukemia based on gene expression profilingHaematologica, 2009
- Clinical outcome of de novo acute myeloid leukaemia patients with normal cytogenetics is affected by molecular genetic alterations: a concise reviewBritish Journal of Haematology, 2007
- Prevalence, clinical profile, and prognosis of NPM mutations in AML with normal karyotypeBlood, 2005
- Global approach to the diagnosis of leukemia using gene expression profilingBlood, 2005
- Purity for clarity: the need for purification of tumor cells in DNA microarray studiesLeukemia, 2005
- Gene expression profile reveals deregulation of genes with relevant functions in the different subclasses of acute myeloid leukemiaLeukemia, 2005
- Pattern robustness of diagnostic gene expression signatures in leukemiaGenes, Chromosomes and Cancer, 2004
- Cytogenetically cryptic AML1-ETO and CBFbeta-MYH11 gene rearrangements: incidence in 412 cases of acute myeloid leukaemiaBritish Journal of Haematology, 2000