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

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 CBFβ/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), CBFβ/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 CBFβ/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 CBFβ/MYH11 in another two patients. Two patients with del(16)(q22) were found to be CBFβ/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.