Dear Editors,
Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) can be classified into multiple genetic subtypes based on recurrent pathogenic structural variants (SVs), copy number abnormalities (CNAs), and single nucleotide variants (SNVs) that inform prognostication and clinical management [1, 2]. Karyotype analysis is considered mandatory in the evaluation of AML. If karyotype analysis fails, fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) can be used as an alternative technique per ELN 2022 [2]. Recent reports have proposed whole genome sequencing (WGS) as an alternative methodology to karyotyping and FISH [3, 4]. MPseq is one example of a WGS technique optimized for the detection of genome-wide SVs and CNAs [5]. However, previous studies have not directly assessed the prognostic utility of WGS approaches in identifying genetic abnormalities above gold-standard cytogenetic approaches within an unbiased, prospective setting.
Here, we performed a prospective evaluation of MPseq in comparison to karyotyping and FISH combined with panel sequencing in the genetic characterization of 105 cases of AML from the Mayo Clinic from August 2017 to December 2018 (Fig. 1A, Supplementary Figs, 1, 2, Supplementary materials and methods). The median age of the cohort was 65 years (range 1–90) with 10 (9.5%) patients under the age of 30 years. Just over half of the cases represented de novo AML (n = 55, 52%), 23 (22%) had AML with myelodysplasia-related changes (AML-MRC), 21 (20%) had relapsed AML and 6 (6%) had therapy related AML (Supplementary Tables 1, 2). The most prevalent cytogenetic result based on all three methodologies was a normal karyotype (37 cases, 35%), followed by deletions of chromosomes 5q and/or 7q (25 cases, 24%). Seven had a simple, non-complex karyotype with non-subtype defining abnormalities, 6 had trisomy 8, 5 had a complex karyotype without 5q or 7q deletions (atypical complex), 6 had a NUP98 (11p15.4) rearrangement and 7 had a KMT2A (11q23.3) rearrangement with gene partner MLLT10 (10p12.31) in 3 cases, ELL (19p13.11) in one case, MLLT6 (17q12) in one case and MLLT3 (9p21.3) in 2 cases. Four had t(15;17)(q24;q21), 3 had inv(3)(q21.3q26.2) or t(3;3)(q21.3;q26.2) including a single case with inv(3) with BCR::ABL1, 3 had inv(16)(p13.1q22) or t(16;16)(p13.1;q22), and a single case each with either t(6;9)(p23;q34.1) or KAT6A rearrangement involving 8p11.2 (Fig. 1B).
When evaluating cytogenetic results obtained by MPseq compared to karyotype plus FISH, 100 of 105 cases were concordant (95.2%) (Table 1, Fig. 1C, D). Of the 5 discordant cases, MPseq missed 4 abnormalities that were identified by karyotype and FISH. All 4 were found in a low level by FISH including a KMT2A rearrangement detected in 17% of cells in a case with t(11;17)(q23;q11.2). In 3 other cases, MPseq missed low-level trisomy 8 found in 3–5% of cells by FISH and detected by karyotype (Table 1, Fig. 1C, D). Since MPseq is validated to identify SVs >10% and CNAs >25% of the tumor clone [5], the missed KMT2Ar represents a false negative result. The final case of discordance included an atypical 7q deletion identified by MPseq that was missed by karyotype and FISH because it did not map within the FISH probe utilized (Table 1).
When evaluating cytogenetic results obtained by each methodology individually, the concordance between MPseq and FISH was 93.3%, between FISH and karyotype was 85.7% and between MPseq and karyotype was 82.9% (Fig. 1D). FISH missed 4 abnormalities identified by MPseq involving deletions of 5q in 1 case and 7q in 3 cases because the deletions did not map within the FISH probe utilized (Table 1, Supplementary Fig. 3). Karyotype analysis failed to detect 11 abnormalities that were identified by FISH or MPseq (Table 1). These included 6 cases with a NUP98 rearrangement, 2 cases with a TP53 deletion, and one case each with a KMT2A::MLLT10 fusion and an inv(8) resulting in a KAT6A rearrangement, and a 7q deletion. Additionally, karyotype analysis detected 4 cases with a 17p deletion, which presumptively included loss of the TP53 locus, that were not identified by FISH or MPseq. There was 100% concordance for some AML-associated rearrangements with consistent and cytogenetically detectable breakpoints including t(9;22)(q34.1;q11.2), t(6;9)(p23.3;q34.1), inv(16)(p13.1q22), inv(3)(q21.3q26.2), and t(15;17)(q24;q21) (Fig. 1C) demonstrating that karyotype, FISH, and MPseq are similarly reliable methodologies to identify these recurrent rearrangements. However, as expected, all NUP98 rearrangements observed in this study were cryptic by karyotype and detected by both FISH and MPseq (Fig. 1E). Reduced concordance between karyotype and MPseq was also observed for 17p/TP53 deletions (57%), KMT2A rearrangements (75%) and trisomy 8 (81%) (Fig. 1E). FISH and MPseq have a higher sensitivity in comparison to karyotype analysis in detecting NUP98 and KMT2A rearrangements and TP53 deletions. For low-level abnormalities (<25%), FISH has increased sensitivity compared to MPseq if the abnormality is targetable by the available FISH probe.
Of the 5 cases with discordant results between MPseq compared to karyotype plus FISH (Table 1), the ELN risk stratification remained unchanged (Supplementary Table 3). No additional cryptic, prognostically defining genetic abnormalities per ELN 2022 were identified by MPseq in the remaining samples, including those with a normal or simple karyotype (Fig. 1C). Thus, MPseq did not alter the ELN risk stratification above information provided by karyotype combined with FISH demonstrating that by using the current risk stratification guidelines, karyotype in combination with FISH analysis remains a robust laboratory approach in the evaluation of AML.
We next evaluated whether MPseq could uncover AML-associated abnormalities not currently incorporated into the ELN guidelines. Using a list of 109 genes implicated in AML or MDS [6], we identified an average of 7.5 individual gene aberrations per case including an average of 3.9 losses, 3.1 gains or amplifications and 0.5 SVs (Supplementary Fig. 4). Overall, MPseq identified additional aberrations in 43 cases (40.1%) involving AML genes undetected by karyotyping (Supplementary Table 4). The most frequently deleted genes included KMT2C, CUX1, and EZH2, located on 7q and the most frequently gained genes included MYC and/or CCDC26, RAD21, and TRPS1, located on chromosome 8. MECOM was the most frequently rearranged gene in our AML cohort (Supplementary Figs 4–5). MPseq identified 11 cases (10.5%) with significant regions of gain that are not currently prognostic per the current ELN guidelines including a case (NK-34) of a KMT2A partial tandem duplication (Supplementary Fig. 6A), a case (Simple K-129) with 1–28 double minute chromosomes (extrachromosomal circular DNA fragments) with amplification of the MYC gene and 3 cases (NK-11, NK-19, 7q-55) with focal gains identified by MPseq of 8q24 involving MYC and/or the nearby long noncoding RNA CCDC26. The partial gain of CCDC26 in 7q-55 was also associated with a cryptic ins(14;8)(q32.2;24.21) resulting in an insertion between BCL11B into the CCDC26. We also observed 2 cases with iAMP21 by MPseq (case 5q-65 and 5q-147) (Supplementary Fig. 6B). Finally, 2 cases (5q/7q-94 and 5q/7q-96) had amplifications of both MECOM (with a rearrangement) and KRAS. Rare or novel SVs were identified in 20 cases (19.0%) including case KAT6Ar-128, which was found to have a cryptic inv(8) resulting in a KAT6A::SORBS3 fusion. A single case (simple K-132) had a ZMYND11::MBTD1 fusion. SVs disrupting NF1 were found in 2 cases (Atypical CK-146, 5q/7q-92), RUNX1 in 2 cases (5q-147, 5q/7q-85), non-GATA2 MECOM rearrangements in 6 cases (7q-56, 5q-148, 5q/7q-84, 5q/7q-94, 5q/7q-96, KMT2A-112) and an ASXL1 rearrangement resulting in a partial deletion of the gene in one case (5q/7q-87). Finally, MPseq characterized each of 6 NUP98 rearrangements revealing KMD5A partner gene in 3 cases and NSD1 partner in 3 cases. Recurrent focal deletions of AML associated genes not appreciated by karyotyping were common (Supplementary Figs 4, 5). Excluding genes located on chromosomes 5 and 7 and TP53, the most frequently deleted gene was NF1 in 9 cases.
In summary, we identified five cases (4.8%) of discordance between MPseq compared to karyotype with FISH when evaluating recurrent AML-associated genetic abnormalities. Greater discordance was identified when comparing karyotype to FISH (14.3%) or karyotype to MPseq (17.1%) individually. These findings contrast previous studies which have reported limited value of FISH in AML when an adequate karyotype is available [7, 8]. Six of our discordant cases included NUP98 rearrangements, which are often cryptic and not evaluated in previous studies. Thus, for specific aberrations that are difficult to detect karyotypically such as TP53 deletions and NUP98 rearrangements, the added value of MPseq is not strong if a comprehensive FISH panel including probes targeting NUP98 (especially in pediatric AML), TP53 and KMT2A are used. Alterations in TP53 are associated with significantly inferior outcomes and treatment responses in AML and biallelic alteration in TP53 AML confers the worse outcomes among CK AMLs [9]. Therefore, accurate characterization of the TP53 locus is important for prognostication and may soon impact clinical management.
Although we demonstrate that MPseq does not currently add additional prognostic value above FISH when compared to a comprehensive AML FISH panel, risk stratification guidelines will likely evolve to include novel abnormalities of prognostic significance detected by NGS. For example, growing evidence suggests NUP98 rearrangements are associated with poor outcome [10], but NUP98 rearrangements have not yet been incorporated into ELN guidelines. Similarly, KMT2A partial tandem duplications have been reported in 10% of AML and MDS and are associated with poor outcome [11]. Other rare abnormalities not incorporated into ELN guidelines identified here include MYC amplification, associated with a CK and poor outcome [12], BCL11B::MYC rearrangements reported as a driver in ambiguous leukemia [13], ZMYND11::MBTD1 fusion [14] and iAMP21 AML [15].
We demonstrate that karyotype analysis when combined with FISH remains a robust laboratory approach in the evaluation of AML. While the use of MPseq did not add significant value above FISH using current ELN guidelines, NGS technologies such as WGS will continue to identify novel high-risk AML subgroups, which will likely enhance future risk stratification guidelines.
Data availability
The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
References
Papaemmanuil E, Gerstung M, Bullinger L, Gaidzik VI, Paschka P, Roberts ND, et al. Genomic classification and prognosis in acute myeloid leukemia. N Engl J Med. 2016;374:2209–21.
Dohner H, Wei AH, Appelbaum FR, Craddock C, DiNardo CD, Dombret H, et al. Diagnosis and management of AML in adults: 2022 recommendations from an international expert panel on behalf of the ELN. Blood. 2022;140:1345–77.
Duncavage EJ, Schroeder MC, O’Laughlin M, Wilson R, MacMillan S, Bohannon A, et al. Genome sequencing as an alternative to cytogenetic analysis in myeloid cancers. N Engl J Med. 2021;384:924–35.
Akkari YMN, Baughn LB, Dubuc AM, Smith AC, Mallo M, Dal Cin P, et al. Guiding the global evolution of cytogenetic testing for hematologic malignancies. Blood. 2022;139:2273–84.
Aypar U, Smoley SA, Pitel BA, Pearce KE, Zenka RM, Vasmatzis G, et al. Mate pair sequencing improves detection of genomic abnormalities in acute myeloid leukemia. Eur J Haematol. 2019;102:87–96.
Xu XJ, Bryke C, Sukhanova M, Huxley E, Dash DP, Dixon-Mciver A, et al. Assessing copy number abnormalities and copy-neutral loss-of-heterozygosity across the genome as best practice in diagnostic evaluation of acute myeloid leukemia: An evidence-based review from the cancer genomics consortium (CGC) myeloid neoplasms working group. Cancer Genet. 2018;228:218–35.
He R, Wiktor AE, Hanson CA, Ketterling RP, Kurtin PJ, Van Dyke DL, et al. Conventional karyotyping and fluorescence in situ hybridization: an effective utilization strategy in diagnostic adult acute myeloid leukemia. Am J Clin Pathol. 2015;143:873–8.
Wheeler FC, Kim AS, Mosse CA, Shaver AC, Yenamandra A, Seegmiller AC. Limited utility of fluorescence in situ hybridization for recurrent abnormalities in acute myeloid leukemia at diagnosis and follow-up. Am J Clin Pathol. 2018;149:418–24.
Weinberg OK, Siddon A, Madanat YF, Gagan J, Arber DA, Dal Cin P, et al. TP53 mutation defines a unique subgroup within complex karyotype de novo and therapy-related MDS/AML. Blood Adv. 2022;6:2847–53.
Noort S, Wander P, Alonzo TA, Smith J, Ries RE, Gerbing RB, et al. The clinical and biological characteristics of NUP98-KDM5A in pediatric acute myeloid leukemia. Haematologica. 2021;106:630–4.
Tsai HK, Gibson CJ, Murdock HM, Davineni P, Harris MH, Wang ES, et al. Allelic complexity of KMT2A partial tandem duplications in acute myeloid leukemia and myelodysplastic syndromes. Blood Adv. 2022;6:4236–40.
Huh YO, Tang G, Talwalkar SS, Khoury JD, Ohanian M, Bueso-Ramos CE, et al. Double minute chromosomes in acute myeloid leukemia, myelodysplastic syndromes, and chronic myelomonocytic leukemia are associated with micronuclei, MYC or MLL amplification, and complex karyotype. Cancer Genet. 2016;209:313–20.
Montefiori LE, Bendig S, Gu Z, Chen X, Polonen P, Ma X, et al. Enhancer hijacking drives oncogenic BCL11B expression in lineage-ambiguous stem cell leukemia. Cancer Discov. 2021;11:2846–67.
Li J, Galbo PM Jr, Gong W, Storey AJ, Tsai YH, Yu X, et al. ZMYND11-MBTD1 induces leukemogenesis through hijacking NuA4/TIP60 acetyltransferase complex and a PWWP-mediated chromatin association mechanism. Nat Commun. 2021;12:1045.
Xie W, Xu J, Hu S, Li S, Wang W, Cameron Yin C, et al. iAMP21 in acute myeloid leukemia is associated with complex karyotype, TP53 mutation and dismal outcome. Mod Pathol. 2020;33:1389–97.
Acknowledgements
The Mayo Clinic Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology with support from Dr. Dietrich Matern provided funding for this study. We thank the clinical laboratory staff for processing the samples.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
LBB, BAP, PTG, RPK designed the study. LBB and BAP wrote the manuscript. KP, SAS, IML, BAP identified samples. LBB, CZM, ZS, HT, SS, JBS, and NS analyzed the data and made figures and tables. The remaining authors interpreted the data, edited the manuscript and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
LBB serves as consultant for Genentech, XX serves as consult for Kura Oncology, PTG serves as consultant for AbbVie and BP sits on the Qiagen Somatic Advisory Board. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. The work was performed using funds from the Mayo Clinic Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary information
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Pitel, B.A., Zepeda-Mendoza, C., Sachs, Z. et al. Prospective evaluation of genome sequencing to compare conventional cytogenetics in acute myeloid leukemia. Blood Cancer J. 13, 138 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41408-023-00908-5
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41408-023-00908-5