2015
DOI: 10.1002/ccr3.357
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Diagnosis of intrachromosomal amplification of chromosome 21 (iAMP21) by molecular cytogenetics in pediatric acute lymphoblastic leukemia

Abstract: Key Clinical MessageIntrachromosomal amplification of chromosome 21 (iAMP21) defines a distinct cytogenetic subgroup of B-cell precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia (BCP-ALL) with poor prognosis that should be investigated in routine practice. Single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP)-array provides a useful method to detect such cases showing a highly characteristic profile.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 6 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Reports on MLPA relevance in diagnostics are contradictory. A few publications considering application of MLPA in diagnostic setting of primary aberrations proved inferiority when compared with FISH assay that is undeniably standard method for detection of hyperdiploidy with chromosome 21 gain or ETV6-RUNX1 fusion, with just several methods, e.g., real-time PCR, karyotyping, and SNP array being appreciated aid (Sinclair et al 2011; Duployez et al 2015; Fuka et al 2015; Kim et al 2016; Luskin et al 2017). In contrary, different publications argue that MLPA match results with FISH, CISH array, and qPCR in cases with single-gene CNV detection (Benard-Slagter et al 2017).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Reports on MLPA relevance in diagnostics are contradictory. A few publications considering application of MLPA in diagnostic setting of primary aberrations proved inferiority when compared with FISH assay that is undeniably standard method for detection of hyperdiploidy with chromosome 21 gain or ETV6-RUNX1 fusion, with just several methods, e.g., real-time PCR, karyotyping, and SNP array being appreciated aid (Sinclair et al 2011; Duployez et al 2015; Fuka et al 2015; Kim et al 2016; Luskin et al 2017). In contrary, different publications argue that MLPA match results with FISH, CISH array, and qPCR in cases with single-gene CNV detection (Benard-Slagter et al 2017).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…On the other hand, several downsides, e.g., semi quantitative results, requirement of high concentration of good quality DNA, cannot be overlooked. A few studies attempted to settle whether MLPA is reliable method in CNVs diagnostics and if it mirrors accurately results from FISH assay; however, conclusions were inconsistent (Garcia et al 2013; Duployez et al 2015; Fuka et al 2015; Ivanov Öfverholm et al 2016; Wang et al 2016; Benard-Slagter et al 2017; Ittel et al 2017; Yang et al 2017).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%