ArticleMolecular cytogenetics2014
Identification of prognostic relevant chromosomal abnormalities in chronic lymphocytic leukemia using microarray-based genomic profiling.
Article in Molecular cytogenetics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Leveraging a spectrum of cytogenomics methods for profiling complex karyotypes in chronic lymphocytic leukemia.Human genomics · 2026Article
- The Prevalence of Cytogenetic Abnormalities Detected by Interphase FISH Method in Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia.South Asian journal of cancer · 2025Article
- Perspectives on the Application of Cytogenomic Approaches in Chronic Lymphocytic Leukaemia.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Genomic arrays identify high-risk chronic lymphocytic leukemia with genomic complexity: a multi-center study.Haematologica · 2021Article
- Characterization of Hepatocellular Carcinoma Patients withLiver cancer · 2019Article
- Cytogenetic Abnormalities with Interphase FISH Method and Clinical Manifestation in Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Patients in North-East of Iran.International journal of hematology-oncology and stem cell research · 2017Article
- De Novo Loss-of-Function Mutations in USP9X Cause a Female-Specific Recognizable Syndrome with Developmental Delay and Congenital Malformations.American journal of human genetics · 2016Article
- affy2sv: an R package to pre-process Affymetrix CytoScan HD and 750K arrays for SNP, CNV, inversion and mosaicism calling.BMC bioinformatics · 2015Article
- Molecular basis of chronic lymphocytic leukemia diagnosis and prognosis.Cellular oncology (Dordrecht, Netherlands) · 2015Review
- Microarray-based genomic profiling and in situ hybridization on fibrotic bone marrow biopsies for the identification of numerical chromosomal abnormalities in myelodysplastic syndrome.Molecular cytogenetics · 2015Article
- CpG Oligonucleotide and Interleukin 2 stimulation enables higher cytogenetic abnormality detection rates than 12-o-tetradecanolyphorbol-13-acetate in Asian patients with B-cell chronic lymphocytic leukemia (B-CLL).International journal of hematology · 2014Article
- Cancer cytogenetics: methodology revisited.Annals of laboratory medicine · 2014Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCharacteristic genomic abnormalities in patients with B cell chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) have been shown to provide important prognostic information. Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) and multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA), currently used in clinical diagnostics of CLL, are targeted tests aimed at specific genomic loci. Microarray-based genomic profiling is a new high-resolution tool that enables genome-wide analyses. The aim of this study was to compare two recently launched genomic microarray platforms, i.e., the CytoScan HD Array (Affymetrix) and the HumanOmniExpress Array (Illumina), with FISH and MLPA to ascertain whether these latter tests can be replaced by either one of the microarray platforms in a clinical diagnostic setting.
resultMicroarray-based genomic profiling and FISH were performed in all 28 CLL patients. For an unbiased comparison of the performance of both microarray platforms 9 patients were evaluated on both platforms, resulting in the identification of exactly identical genomic aberrations. To evaluate the detection limit of the microarray platforms we included 7 patients in which the genomic abnormalities were present in a relatively low percentage of the cells (range 5-28%) as previously determined by FISH. We found that both microarray platforms allowed the detection of copy number abnormalities present in as few as 16% of the cells. In addition, we found that microarray-based genomic profiling allowed the identification of genomic abnormalities that could not be detected by FISH and/or MLPA, including a focal TP53 loss and copy neutral losses of heterozygosity of chromosome 17p.
conclusionFrom our results we conclude that although the microarray platforms exhibit a somewhat lower limit of detection compared to FISH, they still allow the detection of copy number abnormalities present in as few as 16% of the cells. By applying similar interpretation criteria, the results obtained from both platforms were comparable. In addition, we conclude that both microarray platforms allow the identification of additional potential prognostic relevant abnormalities such as focal TP53 deletions and copy neutral losses of heterozygosity of chromosome 17p, which would have remained undetected by FISH or MLPA. The prognostic relevance of these novel genomic alterations requires further evaluation in prospective clinical trials.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.