Evidence Hub

Clinical utility of microarray-based gene expression profiling in the diagnosis and subclassification of leukemia: report from the International Microarray Innovations in Leukemia Study Group

T. Haferlach, A. Kohlmann, L. Wieczorek, G. Basso, G. Kronnie, M. Béné, J. de Vos, J. Hernández et al.

Journal of Clinical Oncology, 2010

3,334 participants · 640 citations

Abstract

PURPOSE

The Microarray Innovations in Leukemia study assessed the clinical utility of gene expression profiling as a single test to subtype leukemias into conventional categories of myeloid and lymphoid malignancies.

METHODS

The investigation was performed in 11 laboratories across three continents and included 3,334 patients. An exploratory retrospective stage I study was designed for biomarker discovery and generated whole-genome expression profiles from 2,143 patients with leukemias and myelodysplastic syndromes. The gene expression profiling-based diagnostic accuracy was further validated in a prospective second study stage of an independent cohort of 1,191 patients.

RESULTS

On the basis of 2,096 samples, the stage I study achieved 92.2% classification accuracy for all 18 distinct classes investigated (median specificity of 99.7%). In a second cohort of 1,152 prospectively collected patients, a classification scheme reached 95.6% median sensitivity and 99.8% median specificity for 14 standard subtypes of acute leukemia (eight acute lymphoblastic leukemia and six acute myeloid leukemia classes, n = 693). In 29 (57%) of 51 discrepant cases, the microarray results had outperformed routine diagnostic methods.

CONCLUSION

Gene expression profiling is a robust technology for the diagnosis of hematologic malignancies with high accuracy. It may complement current diagnostic algorithms and could offer a reliable platform for patients who lack access to today's state-of-the-art…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 3,334 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free