Microarray‐based comparative genomic hybridisation reveals additional recurrent aberrations in adult patients evaluated for myelodysplastic syndrome with normal karyotype

Diagnostic accuracy and value of chromosomal microarray analysis for chromosomal abnormalities in prenatal detection: A prospective clinical study

Chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) has emerged as a primary diagnostic tool for the evaluation of developmental delay and structural malformations in children. The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy and value of CMA and karyotyping on diagnosis of chromosomal abnormalities in Fujian province of South China.In the study, 410 clinical samples were collected from pregnant women between March 2015 and December 2016, including 3 villus (0.73%, 3/410), 296 amniotic fluid (72.20%, 296/410), and 111 umbilical cord blood (27.07%, 111/410). All samples were screening for chromosomal abnormalities by both using CMA and karyotyping.The success rate of CMA and karyotyping was 100% (410/410) and 99.27% (407/410), respectively. Sixty-one (14.88%, 61/410) samples were presented with chromosomal abnormalities by using CMA, whereas 47 (11.55%, 47/407) samples were shown with chromosomal abnormalities by using karyotyping. Thirty-one (8.61%, 31/360) samples with normal karyotypes were found to exist chromosomal abnormalities by using CMA. Receiver operating characteristic analysis showed that the area under the curve of karyotyping on the diagnosis of chromosomal abnormalities was 0.90 (95% confidence interval: 0.87-0.93), the sensitivity and specificity was 87.56% and 91.22%, respectively. The area under the curve of CMA on the diagnosis of chromosomal abnormalities was 0.93 (95% confidence interval: 0.90-0.95), with 90.68% sensitivity and 94.40% specificity. Notably, the combination of CMA and karyotyping could improve the diagnosis of chromosomal abnormalities.CMA has a better diagnostic value for screening chromosomal abnormalities, especially for those pregnant women with normal karyotypes. This study has guiding value for prenatal diagnosis in Fujian province of South China.

When Should We Think of Myelodysplasia or Bone Marrow Failure in a Thrombocytopenic Patient? A Practical Approach to Diagnosis

Thrombocytopenia can arise from various conditions, including myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) and bone marrow failure (BMF) syndromes. Meticulous assessment of the peripheral blood smear, identification of accompanying clinical conditions, and characterization of the clinical course are important for initial assessment of unexplained thrombocytopenia. Increased awareness is required to identify patients with suspected MDS or BMF, who are in need of further investigations by a step-wise approach. Bone marrow cytomorphology, histopathology, and cytogenetics are complemented by myeloid next-generation sequencing (NGS) panels. Such panels are helpful to distinguish reactive cytopenia from clonal conditions. MDS are caused by mutations in the hematopoietic stem/progenitor cells, characterized by cytopenia and dysplasia, and an inherent risk of leukemic progression. Aplastic anemia (AA), the most frequent acquired BMF, is immunologically driven and characterized by an empty bone marrow. Diagnosis remains challenging due to overlaps with other hematological disorders. Congenital BMF, certainly rare in adulthood, can present atypically with thrombocytopenia and can be misdiagnosed. Analyses for chromosome fragility, telomere length, and germline gene sequencing are needed. Interdisciplinary expert teams contribute to diagnosis, prognostication, and choice of therapy for patients with suspected MDS and BMF. With this review we aim to increase the awareness and provide practical approaches for diagnosis of these conditions in suspicious cases presenting with thrombocytopenia.