Can Optical Genome Mapping Replace Bone Marrow Biopsies in Acute Myeloid Leukemia?
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background Identifying structural variants (SVs) is essential for targeted treatment and prognosis in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) patients. Current cytogenetic techniques like karyotyping and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) face challenges, leading to test failure rates of over 20% (Pullarkat 2008; Grimwade 1998). Additionally, conventional cytogenetic analysis yields normal or non-specific profiles for over one third of AML patients with analyzable karyotypes (Mawad 2012). Optical genome mapping (OGM) poses a potential solution to these limitations. OGM involves the identification of SVs through analysis of ultra-high molecular weight DNA and does not require dividing cells for analysis. OGM has much higher sensitivity than karyotyping and is typically at the 5% variant allele fraction level. Given the resolution of this technique, we hypothesize that OGM results from peripheral blood (PB) and bone marrow (BM) specimens are highly concordant, thereby obviating the need for diagnostic BM biopsies in many AML patients. In the present study, we determine the concordance rate of results obtained through OGM on PB, OGM on BM and conventional cytogenetics in a small cohort of patients with AML. Methods Fourteen consecutive adult patients with AML and greater than 20% blasts in PB, BM, or both were included in the analysis. Conventional cytogenetics (karyotype and FISH) and OGM were performed on BM or PB samples. Twelve patients had OGM performed on both PB and BM specimens. Additionally, 14 BM and 8 PB samples were analyzed by next generation sequencing (NGS) using the Oncomine Myeloid Research Assay from ThermoFisher, which includes a 40-gene DNA panel and an RNA panel covering 29 fusion drivers, in order to compare findings based on European LeukemiaNet (ELN) 2022 risk categories. Results The mean age at diagnosis was 62 years (range: 20-79) The sample consisted of 8 women and 6 men. The mean percentage of PB blasts at diagnosis was 28% (range: 0.1-88), whereas the mean percentage of BM blasts was 55% (range: 20-88%). Two patients had less than 5% blasts in the PB. By using conventional cytogenetics, 11 patients were categorized as having intermediate risk, while 3 were in the adverse risk category. When comparing conventional cytogenetics and OGM performed on either BM or PB specimens, there was agreement in all 14 cases in terms of ELN risk category. In the patients (n=12) who had OGM performed on both their PB and BM samples, there were no discrepancies detected. In the 8 patients who had OGM and NGS performed on both PB and BM, there was also complete agreement in terms of ELN risk stratification. Conclusions In this ongoing study, OGM completed on BM or PB demonstrated all the same SVs detected by conventional cytogenetics. Additionally, there was total agreement between OGM results obtained on PB or BM, even in patients with low levels of circulating blasts. These results indicate that utilizing OGM could enable clinicians to perform necessary testing for AML patients through a more sensitive and less invasive method, potentially enhancing outcomes.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».