Journals / Eurasian Journal of Medicine / 2022 / Cilt: 54 - Sayı: 2

Next-Generation Sequencing Panel Test in Myeloid Neoplasms and Evaluation with the Clinical Results

Pages
181–185
Publication Date
2022-10-18
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Nextgeneration sequencing myeloid panel tests might be a powerful guide for clinicians.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: Myeloid malignancies are heterogeneous disorders due to defective hematopoiesis and myeloid differentiation of hematopoietic stem/progenitor cell.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Materials and Methods: We evaluated the results of 54 patients who underwent next-generation sequencing myeloid panel testing, with fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH), polymerase chain reaction results and the clinical outcomes.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Nextgeneration sequencing myeloid panel tests might be a powerful guide for clinicians.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objective: Myeloid malignancies are heterogeneous disorders due to defective hematopoiesis and myeloid differentiation of hematopoietic stem/progenitor cell. The molecular landscape of the diseases is complex. Molecular alterations are used for classification and evaluation of prognosis and treatment. We aimed to evaluate the advantages of the next-generation sequencing panel testing in myeloid malignancies and clinical outcomes. Materials and Methods: We evaluated the results of 54 patients who underwent next-generation sequencing myeloid panel testing, with fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH), polymerase chain reaction results and the clinical outcomes. Target genes in the panel were ASXL1, CALR, CBL, CEBPA, CSF3R, DNMT3A, EZH2, FLT3, IDH1, IDH2, JAK2, KIT, KRAS, MPL, NPM1, NRAS, RUNX1, SETBP1, SF3B1, SH2B3, SRSF2, TET2, TP53, U2AF1, and ZRSR2. Results: Diagnoses were acute myeloid leukemia, essential thrombocytosis, polistemia vera, primary myelofibrosis, hypereosinophilic syndrome (HES), chronic myeloid leukemia, myelodysplastic syndromes, chronic myelomonocytic leukemia. Twenty-eight missense, 8 frameshift, 5 stop gain, and 3 in-frame mutations were detected. A double mutation was detected in JAK-2 with next-generation sequencing in the patient who was given a false negative result due to polymerase chain reaction limitation. Conclusion: Screening multiple mutations simultaneously, is time and cost-effective. With the panel test, it is possible to determine the diagnosis, prognosis and targeted treatment options with a single test. Nextgeneration sequencing myeloid panel tests might be a powerful guide for clinicians.

🔖

Cite This Article

KAHRAMAN, Ç. Y., TATAR, A., SİNCAN, G. (2022). Next-Generation Sequencing Panel Test in Myeloid Neoplasms and Evaluation with the Clinical Results. Eurasian Journal of Medicine, Cilt: 54 - Sayı: 2, 181–185. https://ajindex.com/articles/508769

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (16)

  1. Docking TR, Karan A. Genomic testing in myeloid malignancy. Int J Lab Hematology. 2019
  2. 41(supply 1):117-125. [CrossRef] 2. de Rooij JD, Zwaan CM, van den Heuvel- Eibrink M. Pediatric AML: From biology to clinical management. J Clin Med. 2015
  3. 4(1):127-149. [CrossRef] 3. Bacher U, Schnittger S, Haferlach C, Haferlach T. Molecular diagnostics in acute leukemias. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2009
  4. 47(11):1333-1341. [CrossRef] 4. Gilliland DG, Griffin JD. The roles of FLT3 in hematopoiesis and leukemia. Blood. 2002
  5. 100(5):1532-1542. [CrossRef] 5. Kuo FC, Dong F. Next-generation sequencingbased panel testing for myeloid neoplasms. Curr Hematol Malig Rep. 2015
  6. 10(2):104-111. [CrossRef] 6. Döhner H, Estey E, Grimwade D, et al. Diagnosis and management of AML in adults: 2017 ELN recommendations from an international expert panel. Blood. 2017
  7. 129(4):424-447. [CrossRef] 7. Yang F, Anekpuritanang T, Press RD. Clinical utility of next-generation sequencing in acute myeloid leukemia. Mol Diagn Ther. 2020
  8. 24(1):1-13. [CrossRef] 8. Haferlach T, Nagata Y, Grossmann V, et al. Landscape of genetic lesions in 944 patients with myelodysplastic syndromes. Leukemia. 2014
  9. 28(2):241-247. [CrossRef] 9. Cumbo C, Tota G, Anelli L, Zagaria A, Specchia G, Albano F. TP53 in myelodysplastic syndromes: recent biological and clinical findings. Int J Mol Sci. 2020
  10. 21(10). [CrossRef] 10. Malcovati L, Karimi M, Papaemmanuil E, et al. SF3B1 mutation identifies a distinct subset of myelodysplastic syndrome with ring sideroblasts. Blood. 2015
  11. 126(2):233-241. [CrossRef] 11. Mangaonkar AA, Gangat N, Al-Kali A, et al. Prognostic impact of ASXL1 mutations in patients with myelodysplastic syndromes and multilineage dysplasia with or without ring sideroblasts. Leuk Res. 2018
  12. [CrossRef] 12. Arber DA, Orazi A, Hasserjian R, et al. The 2016 revision to the World Health Organization classification of myeloid neoplasms and acute leukemia. Blood. 2016
  13. 127(20):2391-2405. [CrossRef] 13. Saeidi K. Myeloproliferative neoplasms: current molecular biology and genetics. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2016
  14. [CrossRef] 14. Skoda RC, Duek A, Grisouard J. Pathogenesis of myeloproliferative neoplasms. Exp Hematol. 2015
  15. 43(8):599-608. [CrossRef] 15. Guglielmelli P, Pacilli A, Rotunno G, et al. Presentation and outcome of patients with 2016 WHO diagnosis of prefibrotic and overt primary myelofibrosis. Blood. 2017
  16. 129(24):3227-3236. [CrossRef] 16. Richards S, Aziz N, Bale S, et al. Standards and guidelines for the i