Acute Myeloid Leukemia Clinical Trial
Official title:
Comparison of Diagnostic Yield Among Multiplex Fluorescent in Situ Hybridization, Fluorescent in Situ Hybridization Probe Panel and Conventional Cytogenetic Studies in Acute Myeloid Leukemia
Conventional cytogenetic studies have been the gold standard for more than five decades for detecting genetic alterations that are greater than 10 Mb (mega base pairs) in size. Conventional cytogenetic studies have paved the way in identifying specific chromosomal aberrations associated with clinically and morphologically definitive subsets of hematological neoplasms. Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) has become a reliable and rapid complementary test in targeting critical genetic events associated with diagnostics and prognosis in hematological neoplasms. In the current health care environment, which increasingly focuses on value and efficiency, it is critical for pathologists and clinicians to effectively navigate this environment and judiciously incorporate these high-complexity and expensive techniques into routine patient care. While conventional karyotyping provides a comprehensive view of the genome, FISH can detect cryptic or submicroscopic genetic abnormalities and identify recurrent genetic abnormalities in nondividing cells. As a consequence, it is commonly extrapolated that FISH will improve the sensitivity of detecting all genetic abnormalities compared with conventional karyotyping analysis. This assumption has then been translated in clinical practice to having clinicians and pathologists routinely ordering both conventional karyotyping and FISH studies in patients with hematological neoplasms. Depending on how comprehensive the FISH panel is, the cost for this testing may be quite expensive, and its additive value remains questionable. It is common practice for laboratories to use FISH panels in conjunction with karyotyping both in diagnostic specimens and during follow-up to monitor response to therapy. Multiplex FISH (M-FISH) represents one of the most significant developments in molecular cytogenetics of the past decade. In tumor and leukemia cytogenetics, two groups have been targeted by M-FISH to identify cryptic chromosome rearrangements not detectable by conventional cytogenetic studies: those with an apparently normal karyotype (suspected of harboring small rearrangements not detectable by conventional cytogenetics) and those with a complex aberrant karyotype (which are difficult to karyotype accurately due to the sheer number of aberrations).
Neoplastic hematology is at the forefront of personal¬ized medicine. The World Health Organization (WHO) classification incorporates genetic data with microscopic, immunophenotypic, and clini¬cal findings and categorizes hematologic neoplasms into clinically and biologically distinct categories. This system guides diagnosis, prognosis and therapeutic choices, which has become increasingly important with emerging targeted therapies for lymphoma and leukemia. However, laboratory tests for hematologic neoplasms are of high complexity and are generally quite costly. The initial assessment of many hematologic neoplasms includes morphological, histological, immunophenotypic (flow cytometric and/or immunohistochemical), and conventional cytogenetic studies. Data obtained from cytogenetic analysis can be pathognomonic for specific leukemias in the WHO classification (for example, acute myeloid leukemia (AML) with recurrent cytogenetic abnormalities and chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML)) and are likely to assume a greater role in defining specific categories in further classifications. Conventional cytogenetic studies have been the gold standard for more than five decades for detecting genetic alterations that are greater than 10 Mb (mega base pairs) in size. They have paved the way in identifying specific chromosomal aberrations associated with clinically and morphologically definitive subsets of hematological neoplasms. Fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) has become a reliable and rapid complementary test in targeting critical genetic events associated with diagnostics and prognosis in hematological neoplasms. FISH has addressed the issues with conventional cytogenetic studies by targeting interphase cells in addition to metaphases. It has become clear that FISH studies may also be an integral component of the diagnostic evaluation, particularly where the abnormality is "cryptic" i.e. not evident by conventional cytogenetic studies. Although complementary FISH testing increases the overall detection of aberrations, its benefit is not uniform across all types of hematological neoplasms. This is because FISH probes are restricted to the detection of only specific abnormalities and genetic alterations beyond the scope of the FISH probes would therefore be completely missed. It is common practice for laboratories to use FISH probe panels in conjunction with karyotyping both in diagnostic specimens and during follow-up to monitor response to therapy. FISH is targeted toward specific abnormalities, and results can be evaluated in an automated fashion on interphase nuclei, allowing for examination of more cells than conventional cytogenetic studies. FISH has higher analytic and, in certain circumstances, higher clinical sensitivity compared with conventional cytogenetic studies. The usage of FISH probe panels in aiding diagnosis or in monitoring follow-up samples of hematologic neoplasms is critical. The Eastern Collaborative Oncology Group (ECOG) compared conventional cytogenetic studies and FISH in AML patients and found that a probe panel to detect monosomy 5/deletion 5q, monosomy 7/deletion 7q, trisomy 8, t(8;21), t(9;22), MLL rearrangements with various partners, t(15;17), and inv(16)/t(16;16), had a concordance between 98% and 100%. On the other hand, He et al study demonstrates the limited value of FISH testing in adult AML in the setting of an adequate karyotyping study. Despite of many significant technological advances made in recent years in the area of clinical genetic testing, conventional cytogenetic studies and routine FISH studies remain important laboratory testing tools available for evaluating hematologic neoplasms. Usually these two testing methods complement each other and often FISH serves to clarify and better define cytogenetic results. Therefore, there is a very strong expectation that cytogenetic and FISH results should confirm each other in spite of cases that appear to be exceptions. When conflicting results occur by these two testing methods on the same specimen, clinical laboratories are challenged to offer explanations based on empirical data beyond simply stating that it was or was not due to laboratory error. Multiplex FISH (M-FISH) represents one of the most significant developments in molecular cytogenetics of the past decade. In tumor and leukemia cytogenetics, two groups have been targeted by M-FISH to identify cryptic chromosome rearrangements not detectable by conventional cytogenetic studies: those with an apparently normal karyotype (suspected of harboring small rearrangements not detectable by conventional cytogenetics) and those with a complex aberrant karyotype (which are difficult to karyotype accurately due to the sheer number of aberrations). Zhang et al. used spectral karyotype (SKY) to re-evaluate the karyotypes of AML cases reported as normal by G-banding. This resulted in the identification of one case of t(11;19)(q23;p13), a subtle but recognized cytogenetic abnormality, and a minor clone containing monosomy for chromosome 7 in another case. In a similar study, Mohr et al. compared SKY to conventional karyotyping in patients with AML or MDS with normal karyotypes. No abnormalities were identified. With the lack of an evidence-based standardized algorithmic approach, misuse and overutilization of laboratory tests are common and result in increased health care costs and patient care complexity. In the current health care environment, which increasingly focuses on value and efficiency, it is critical for pathologists and clinicians to incorporate high-complexity and expensive techniques into routine patient care. While conventional cytogenetic studies provide a comprehensive view of the genome, FISH probe panel can detect cryptic or submicroscopic genetic abnormalities and identify recurrent genetic abnormalities in nondividing cells. M-FISH can identify cryptic chromosome rearrangements that are not detected by conventional cytogenetic studies. As a consequence, it is commonly extrapolated that FISH will improve the sensitivity of detecting all genetic abnormalities compared with conventional cytogenetic studies. This assumption has then been translated in clinical practice to having clinicians and pathologists routinely ordering both conventional cytogenetic studies and FISH studies in patients with hematological neoplasms. Depending on how comprehensive the FISH probe panel is, the cost for this testing may be quite expensive, and its additive value remains questionable. ;
Status | Clinical Trial | Phase | |
---|---|---|---|
Recruiting |
NCT05400122 -
Natural Killer (NK) Cells in Combination With Interleukin-2 (IL-2) and Transforming Growth Factor Beta (TGFbeta) Receptor I Inhibitor Vactosertib in Cancer
|
Phase 1 | |
Recruiting |
NCT04460235 -
Immunogenicity of an Anti-pneumococcal Combined Vaccination in Acute Leukemia or Lymphoma
|
Phase 4 | |
Completed |
NCT03678493 -
A Study of FMT in Patients With AML Allo HSCT in Recipients
|
Phase 2 | |
Completed |
NCT04022785 -
PLX51107 and Azacitidine in Treating Patients With Acute Myeloid Leukemia or Myelodysplastic Syndrome
|
Phase 1 | |
Recruiting |
NCT05424562 -
A Study to Assess Change in Disease State in Adult Participants With Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML) Ineligible for Intensive Chemotherapy Receiving Oral Venetoclax Tablets in Canada
|
||
Completed |
NCT03197714 -
Clinical Trial of OPB-111077 in Patients With Relapsed or Refractory Acute Myeloid Leukaemia
|
Phase 1 | |
Terminated |
NCT03224819 -
Study of Emerfetamab (AMG 673) in Adults With Relapsed/Refractory Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML)
|
Early Phase 1 | |
Active, not recruiting |
NCT03844048 -
An Extension Study of Venetoclax for Subjects Who Have Completed a Prior Venetoclax Clinical Trial
|
Phase 3 | |
Active, not recruiting |
NCT04070768 -
Study of the Safety and Efficacy of Gemtuzumab Ozogamicin (GO) and Venetoclax in Patients With Relapsed or Refractory CD33+ Acute Myeloid Leukemia:Big Ten Cancer Research Consortium BTCRC-AML17-113
|
Phase 1 | |
Active, not recruiting |
NCT04107727 -
Trial to Compare Efficacy and Safety of Chemotherapy/Quizartinib vs Chemotherapy/Placebo in Adults FMS-like Tyrosine Kinase 3 (FLT3) Wild-type Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML)
|
Phase 2 | |
Recruiting |
NCT04920500 -
Bioequivalence of Daunorubicin Cytarabine Liposomes in Naive AML Patients
|
N/A | |
Recruiting |
NCT04385290 -
Combination of Midostaurin and Gemtuzumab Ozogamicin in First-line Standard Therapy for Acute Myeloid Leukemia (MOSAIC)
|
Phase 1/Phase 2 | |
Recruiting |
NCT03897127 -
Study of Standard Intensive Chemotherapy Versus Intensive Chemotherapy With CPX-351 in Adult Patients With Newly Diagnosed AML and Intermediate- or Adverse Genetics
|
Phase 3 | |
Active, not recruiting |
NCT04021368 -
RVU120 in Patients With Acute Myeloid Leukemia or High-risk Myelodysplastic Syndrome
|
Phase 1 | |
Recruiting |
NCT03665480 -
The Effect of G-CSF on MRD After Induction Therapy in Newly Diagnosed AML
|
Phase 2/Phase 3 | |
Completed |
NCT02485535 -
Selinexor in Treating Patients With Intermediate- and High-Risk Acute Myeloid Leukemia or High-Risk Myelodysplastic Syndrome After Transplant
|
Phase 1 | |
Enrolling by invitation |
NCT04093570 -
A Study for Participants Who Participated in Prior Clinical Studies of ASTX727 (Standard Dose), With a Food Effect Substudy at Select Study Centers
|
Phase 2 | |
Recruiting |
NCT04069208 -
IA14 Induction in Young Acute Myeloid Leukemia
|
Phase 2 | |
Recruiting |
NCT05744739 -
Tomivosertib in Relapsed or Refractory Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML)
|
Phase 1 | |
Recruiting |
NCT04969601 -
Anti-Covid-19 Vaccine in Children With Acute Leukemia and Their Siblings
|
Phase 1/Phase 2 |