Open Access

Banding cytogenetic analysis in pediatric patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) in a Brazilian population

  • Erica Aires Gil1Email author,
  • Tirzah Braz Petta Lajus2,
  • Taissa Maria Oliveira de Moura1,
  • Juliana Mendonça Freire1,
  • Andréa Luciana Araújo da Fernandes1,
  • Gioconda Dias Rodrigues Leão1,
  • Edlene Melo Reis do Nascimento1,
  • Gabriela Vasconcelos Andrade de Alves1 and
  • Geraldo Barroso Cavalcanti Júnior1
Molecular Cytogenetics20136:37

https://doi.org/10.1186/1755-8166-6-37

Received: 17 April 2013

Accepted: 21 August 2013

Published: 11 September 2013

Abstract

Background

Cytogenetic studies in Brazilian population about childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), the most common childhood malignancy, are scarce. Moreover, Brazilian race is very heterogeneous and is made by the confluence of people of several different origins, from the original Native Brazilians, with the influx of Portuguese colonizers, Black African slaves, and recent European, Arab and Japanese immigration. The purpose of this prospective, multicentric study was to assess the sociodemographic, clinic and cytogenetic characteristics of the children treated for ALL in the Northeast region of Brazil.

Results

This study includes thirty patients between 4 months and 17 years old treated for ALL from January 1st, 2009 to November 30th, 2010. Cytogenetic analysis showed that in nineteen out of thirty patients (64%) presented some chromosome abnormalities, in which 53% corresponds to numerical abnormalities, 21% structural and numerical abnormalities, and 26% only structural changes. Moreover, seven patients presented complexes karyotype not yet described in the literature. Taken together these results show the importance of the cytogenetic analysis in ALL pediatric patients and illustrates that the studied population presented unexpected complexes karyotypes which were correlated to poor outcome.

Conclusion

The results demonstrate the importance of banding cytogenetics for ALL diagnosis despite the use of most modern techniques such as FISH and aCGH, and provide reliable insight into the ALL in Brazil.

Keywords

(3 a 6) Epidemiology Acute lymphoblastic leukemia Childhood Banding cytogenetic analysis

Background

Acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) comprises a group of neoplasms characterized by clonal proliferation and accumulation in the blast, hematopoietic immature cells in the bone marrow. ALL is a disease characterized by abnormal clonal proliferation of lymphoid precursors which lose their ability to differentiate. It is the most common malignancy in childhood, accounting for 80% of all leukemia. Although it can occur at any age, its incidence is highest among children from 2 to 5 years at a rate of about 70%, decreasing among adolescents and young adults. The most useful prognostic indicators in ALL are age, white blood cell count (WBC) and immunologic markers. Cytogenetic analysis is of fundamental importance in the diagnosis, therapy, in monitoring post-transplant bone marrow and to assess prognosis. It is now possible to correlate the karyotype with other recognized prognostic factors and to show that cytogenetic studies can increase the precision of other clinical prognostic features. Unfortunately, banding cytogenetic analysis of leukemia is technically demanding, especially in the case of ALL in infants. Clonal abnormalities are difficult to identify because of frequent failure of standard chromosome-preparing protocols. Moreover, clonal selection leads to a high proportion of normal metaphases, masking abnormal cells when a limited number of metaphases are analyzed [1]. Therefore, the chromosomal classification of ALL is often incomplete, and it is not clear whether the abnormalities detected in a few analyzable metaphases are representative of the whole leukemic clone [2, 3].

Banding cytogenetic studies have identified numerical and structural chromosomal abnormalities related to the disease’s pathophysiologic characteristics. Frequency of these abnormalities varies between pediatric and adult patients. In children, pseudodiploidy is the most frequent (40%), followed by hyperdiploidy with 51–65 chromosomes (27%), hyperdiploidy with 47–50 chromosomes (15%), hypodiploidy (6%), near-haploidy (1%), and the tetraploids (1–2%) [4, 5]. It has also been demonstrated that the frequency with which chromosomal abnormalities are observed varies among populations. In the Hindu population, hyperdiploidy is infrequent (15%), in contrast with the high frequency of hypodiploidy (38.4%). This behavior has been attributed to unknown ethnic differences and geographic factors [6, 7].

We aimed to study the cytogenetic profile in pediatric patients in several health institutions in the Brazilian Northeast region, which is a very heterogeneous race and no data on this feature is available in the literature.

Aim

To determine the cytogenetics profile of patients with ALL during the period from January 1st, 2009 to November 30th, 2010 in the Northeast of Brazil.

Results

Patients characteristics

The sample comprised 30 patients diagnosed for ALL between one and ten years old. The clinical characteristics of the ALL patient populations are provided in Table 1. Thirty seven percent (37%) were in the range between two and five years old, with a mean age of 7,5 years old. Regarding the sex, the male:female ratio was 1,3:1. The complexity of racial classifications in Brazil reflects the extent of miscegenation in Brazilian society, more people would report themselves as white and pardo, which is a mixed race of white and black people found only in Brazil (47.7% and 42.4% of the population as of 2010, respectively). For this reason we have separated the studied population by skin color. Skin color was predominantly white (50%) followed by pardo (33%) and black (17%).
Table 1

An unusual T-cell childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia harboring a yet unreported near-tetraploid karyotype

N

Sex

Age (y)

Skin color

BCC (g/dL)

Leucometry values (ul)

Platelets values (ul)

1

F

4

White

7,3

20200

32000

2

F

7

White

12

11000

44000

3

M

5

Pardo

5,9

34700

33000

4

M

16

White

13

4600

63000

5

F

6

White

7,5

3100

32000

6

F

4

Black

8

4300

283000

7

M

3

Black

9

5800

336000

8

F

5

White

10,2

7800

165000

9

M

12

White

14

4400

249000

10

M

16

Black

8

1500

12000

11

M

17

Pardo

15

2800

19000

12

F

15

White

8

3000

52000

13

M

8

Pardo

11,3

3200

44900

14

F

0,4

Black

7,8

96600

65000

15

M

3

Pardo

9,2

21900

55000

16

F

3

Black

7,3

7900

26000

17

M

5

Pardo

6,8

35900

54000

18

M

2

White

5,7

6300

7000

19

M

3

White

8,4

50900

37000

20

F

1

Pardo

5,4

45700

26000

21

M

17

Pardo

7,1

60000

12000

22

F

7

Pardo

9,4

33200

83000

23

F

3

White

7,5

5600

45000

24

F

6

White

9,4

25000

38000

25

F

17

White

11,3

6500

18000

26

M

2

White

8,5

7400

45000

27

M

0,4

Pardo

10

13500

60000

28

M

6

White

7,8

2100

42000

29

M

5

White

6,9

5600

77000

30

M

16

Pardo

11,5

5300

160000

According to medical records, the most common finding of physical examination was hepatomegaly (73%), splenomegaly (70%) and lymphadenopathy (37%). The samples (bone marrow and peripheral blood) were collected previous treatment in 83% of patients, whereas 17% were submitted to collection after treatment has been initialized. Seventy three percent (73%) of the patients’ hemoglobin levels were less than 10 g/dL; 60% of patients showed white blood cell (WBC) counts below 10.000/μL and 40% above this value. Considering the population who showed WBC above 10.000/μL, 10% were above 50.000/μL. Thrombocytopenia was observed in 83% of cases (Table 1).

Cytogenetics studies

Cytogenetic studies using G-banding techniques were performed in 30 samples from ALL patients, where nineteen (64%) presented chromosomal alterations in the bone marrow (BM) and peripheral blood (PB), seven patients (23%) had normal karyotype and in four patients (13%) it was not possible to analyze due to the absence of cell growth (MI - mitotic index zero). Immunophenotype analysis showed that 93% of patients had B-lineage ALL and 7% T- lineage ALL. Among the B-lineage ALL, the majority of cases (83%) were classified as pre-B (Table 2). The small percentage of patients with T-ALL may be associated with the proportion of adolescent patients in this sample which were over 10 years.
Table 2

Results from G-banding technique related to imunophenotype of each patient (130)

N

Karyotype

Cell type

Classification of cytogenetic alteration

Ploidy

1

42 ~ 45,XX, -3[3], -13[3], -20[4][cp7] /46,XX [13]

ALL pre-B (L1)

Numerical

Hyperdiploidy

3

45 ~ 56,XY, +4[3], +8[4], +11[3], +18[4], +20[3], +21[4][cp20] / 46, XY [05]

ALL pre-B (L1)

Numerical

Hyperdiploidy

4

46,XY [20]

ALL pre-B (L3)

Normal

-

5

46, XX [13]

ALL pre-B (L1)

Normal

-

6

46, XX [23]

ALL pre-B (L1)

Normal

-

7

46,XY, del(4)(p14?) [09] / 46,XY [11]

ALL pre-B (L1)

Structural

Pseudodiploidy

8

49 ~ 58,XX, +5[4], +9[3], +11[3], +15[4], +21[4], +22[3] [cp9] / 46,XX [02]

ALL pre-B (L1)

Numerical

Hyperdiploidy

9

46,XY [23]

ALL pre-B (L1)

Normal

-

11

48, XY, t (1;3) (q32;q27), +16, + mar[09] / 46, XY [14]

ALL pre-B (L2)

Numerical + structural

Hyperdiploidy+add

12

49 ~ 87, XX , +1[5], +3[4], +5[5], +7[5], +10[4], +12[6], +13[04], add(14)(q32?), add(16)(p13.3), +18[6], +19[4], +20[3], +21[6], +22[5][cp30]

ALL Pre-B (L1)

Numerical + structural

Hyperdiploidy+add

13

49~54, XY, +3[3], +5[4], +8[4], +10[3], +17[4], +21[4][cp11] / 46,XY [04]

ALL pre-B (L3)

Numerical

Hyperdiploidy

14

46,XX,del(11)(q23) [17]

ALL pre-B (L1)

Structural

Pseudodiploidy

15

41~45,XY, -5[3], -7[3], -21[4][cp13] / 46,XY[07]

ALL pre-B (L1)

Numerical

Hypodiploidy

16

50~61,XX, +2[3], +4[4], +10[4], +12[3],+16[4], +19[5], +21[4][cp7] / 46,XX[05]

ALL pre-B (L1)

Numerical

Hyperdiploidy

17

48~60,XY, +3[4], +5[5], +7[4], +13[4], +17[3], +20[4], +21[4][cp22] / 46,XY[05]

ALL pre-B (L1)

Numerical

Hyperdiploidy

18

49~58,XY, +1[4], +6[4], +7[5], +22[3][cp9] / 46,XY[11]

ALL pre-B (L1)

Numerical

Hyperdiploidy

19

46,XY, dup(1)(q31q44) [12] / 46,XY, dup(13)(q13q34) [05] / 46,XY, der(21) t(7;21) (q21q36;q22.3) [04] / 46,XY [04]

ALL – B (L3)

Structural

Pseudodiploidy

20

46, XX, -7, + der 7 t(7;?)(q31;?) [30]

ALL pre-B (L1)

Numerical + structural

Pseudodiploidy

23

53~62,XX, +5[4], +8[4], +12[3], +16[4], +18[3], +20[4], +21[4][cp7]/46,XX[15]

ALL-B (L2)

Numerical

Hyperdiploidy

24

46,XX[19]

ALL pre-B (L3)

Normal

-

25

46,XX,t(9;22)(q34;q11), add(14)(q32) [20]

ALL pre-B (L1)

Structural

Pseudodiploidy

26

47,XY,i(7)(q10), +21c[22] /48,idem, +mar[4] / 48, XY, i(7)(q10), +8, +21c [03]

ALL pre-B (L1)

Numerical + structural

Hyperdiploidy+add

27

46,XY [20]

ALL – T (L2)

Normal

-

28

38~45,XX, t(9;14), (q22?;q32?), del(20)(q?) [21]

ALL pré-B (L2)

Numerical + strutural

Hypodiploidy+add

29

46,XY [20]

ALL pré-B

Normal

-

30

36~45,XY, -4[3], -7[4], -9[3], -11[3], -22[4] [cp23] / 46,XY [03]

ALL pré-B

Numerical

Hypodiploidy

Legend: Samples 2, 10, 21 and 22 had null Mitotic Index (MI=0). Complex karyotypes are highlighted in bold character in the table (N=7). L1: acute lymphoblastic leukemia type 1; L2: acute lymphoblastic leukemia type 2; L3: acute lymphoblastic leukemia type 3. inv - inversion; mar – marker chromosome; t – translocation; i – isochromosome; add – additional chromosome; dup – duplication; der – derivative chromosome; Ph+ - Philadelphia chromosome; del – deletion; p – short arm of the chromosome; q – long arm of the chromosome, [ ] cells number analyzed.

Complex karyotype are highlighted in the table (N=7).

Considering the nineteen patients who presented some type of chromosomal abnormality, 53% were numerical abnormalities, 21%, were structural and numerical abnormalities and 26% of the patients presented only structural changes. In fourteen patients who presented numeric chromosomal abnormalities and numeric alteration with additional structural change, hyperdiploidy was detected in eight patients (57%); hyperdiploidy with additional change in three patients (22%); hypodiploidy in two patients (14%), and finally, hypodiploidy with additional changes in one patient (7%) (Table 2). Unusual or novel cytogenetic abnormalities were found in 7 patients (23%). The karyotypes included in these cases presented hyper or hypodiploidy with additional modifications, in addition to the presence of cells with chromosomal markers (Table 2). Patient 26 is a child with Down syndrome (DS) and acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) and is classified as complex karyotype for presenting three different clones.

Discussion

Leukemia is the most common malignant neoplasms in childhood, accounting for approximately 33% of all malignancies in children under 14 years. Leukemia incidence affects the 0–14 years old population with a frequency of 1/25.000 individuals/ year, and the risk of developing the disease within the first 10 years is 1/2.880. After the discovery by Casperson [8] and Seabright [9] of banding techniques, cytogenetic studies showed that about 50% of chromosomal abnormalities could be found in acute leukemia. Several prospective studies using banding techniques, have shown that the incidence of chromosomal abnormalities varies between 55-94%, and found that some changes are specific to particular cell subtype characterized by immunophenotyping [10, 11].

Considering our results, where fifteen patients presented numerical chromosomal anomalies and numerical structural change, the hyperdiploidy was observed in ten patients (67%), which showed 54% only hyperdiploidy and 13% with hyperdiploidy with additional changes, whereas hypodiploidy was found in 33% of patients. Of these, 13% had some structural change. The additional structural changes found were translocation, addition, duplication and the presence of chromosome marker. Pérez-Vera et al. [12] found that 22% patients presented normal karyotype and 74% had some cytogenetic abnormalities. Pui et al. [13] evaluated children diagnosed with ALL and found hyperdiploidy in 26% of the patients. In 62% of these cases were also detected chromosomal structural changes.

According to the literature, it is considered complex karyotypes more than one chromosomal abnormality and/or an alteration which has not yet been described. We observed seven novel complex karyotypes, among these, a translocation between chromosomes 9 and 22 (Ph+) with additional chromosome 14, duplication of chromosomes 1q and 13q, and a derivative of chromosome 21 translocated to chromosome 7, forming a derivative of chromosome 7. It is important to highlight that these complex karyotypes are considered unfavorable outcome. One possible reason could be due to loss, gain or exchange of genes that can promote often resistant to treatment. The presence of the Philadelphia chromosome (Ph+) or 9:22 translocation is usually found in about 3-5% of the pediatric ALL, and is a modification of poor prognosis [14]. It was observed the presence of a marker chromosome in three analyzed karyotype. The marker chromosomes are complex rearrangements, usually consisting of centromeric heterochromatin, but may contain up to part of a chromosome gene. It is practically impossible to establish a precise relationship between the presence of this type of chromosome and the phenotype of the patient. Thus, the characterization of each chromosome marker becomes imperative for this correlation [15].

Among the complex karyotypes it has been found a Down syndrome (DS) presenting three clones cell. According to this finding, Silva et al. [16] found a karyotype of a DS patient involving four clones. In the literature, the relative risk of acute leukemia in the first 5 years has been estimated to be 56 times that of non-DS individuals with an equal frequency of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) or acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) [17].

This study could not be supplemented by molecular approaches due to limitations in amount of patient material and technical limitations as present in many regions of the world. However, banding cytogenetics is the basics for all further studies, especially in rare malignancies like the here reported childhood leukemias.

Even though it is difficult to assume the outcome of these patients, patients with complex cytogenetic changes were classified as poor prognosis. The prognosis was considered favorable in patients with hyperdiploidy or with normal karyotype, and the age between one and six years and/or leukocyte count close to normal. The intermediate prognosis has been established for patients with karyotypes who had only one structural chromosomal alteration, aged between one and six years old, leukocyte count above 20,000/μl and response to treatment assessed by the presence of blasts in the PB. The poor prognosis group presented complex karyotype, are age over 10 years old and have the presence of blasts above 25% in PB.

Taken together these results show the importance of the cytogenetic analysis in ALL pediatric patients and illustrates that the studied population presented unexpected complexes karyotypes which were correlated to poor outcome.

Material and methods

Study design

Patients included were issued from 5 different hospitals of the state of Rio Grande do Norte: Hospital Infantil Varela Santiago, Liga Norte-Riograndense Contra o Câncer, Centro de Oncologia e Hematologia de Mossoró, Clínica DNA Center during the period comprised between January 1st, 2009 and November 30, 2010. The inclusion criteria were cytological and immunohistochemical diagnosis for ALL; patients aged 0–18 years; availability of biological material for cytogenetic analysis; laboratory data, such as leukocyte counts, percentage of blast cells, count platelets and hemoglobin; clinical data: presence or absence of visceromegalies.

Samples processing

Samples of bone marrow and peripheral blood of thirty patients diagnosed with ALL of both sexes, aged from 4 months to 17 years old were collected. Cytogenetic analysis on bone marrow cells and / or peripheral blood was performed in the clinical laboratory of DNA Center. The cytochemical diagnosis, morphological and immunohistochemical were provided by company Hemonorte Hematology (Natal/RN). For cytogenetic analysis, 5 ml of each bone marrow samples was collected in a syringe containing sodium heparin. 2–5 ml of bone marrow were collected in a tube containing 0,1 ml of Liquemine® Roche®. For peripheral blood, 5 ml were collected in a tube containing heparin. Samples were processed by centrifugation (2.000 rpm).

Cell culture

The biological material was incubated overnight in sterile conditions, in media containing 8% RPMI 1640 supplemented with 20% serum fetal bovine (FBS) and glutamine (GIBCO Invitrogen®). The mitotic interruption was proceed by adding 16ug/mL colchicine (GIBCO) and incubated for 1 hour at 37°C. Cells were submitted to hypotonic treatment with a solution of 0.075 M potassium chloride for 20 minutes and the material were fixed with 3:1 (v/v) methanol: acetic acid. Cells were spread in the slides and dried on a heating plate.

GTG-banding cytogenetics

Karyotyping was performed using standard techniques, and the results were reported according to the International System for Human Cytogenetic Nomenclature guidelines. The slides were incubated in Sorensen’s buffer for 45 min and then stained with Wright’s stain buffer for 2 minutes. The slides were analyzed in an optical microscope (Nikon-E200). A complex aberrant karyotype was defined as three or more independent cytogenetic abnormalities in at least two bone marrow cells.

Data collection

Data were collected and entered in Microsoft Excel® spreadsheet, and later, there was a descriptive analysis using SPSS Statistics 17.0, mean, median and standard deviation of patient characteristics (age, sex, color) clinical data (lymphadenopathy, hepatomegaly and splenomogaly), chromosomal abnormalities present in the samples, prognosis of abnormalities found and, finally, the parameters hematology (hemoglobin, leukocytes and platelets).

Ethics consent

This study was approved in the Ethics Committee of The Hospital Universitário Onofre Lopes (Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte) under the registration number: 083/07. The written informed consent number obtained from the patient’s parents for publication of this case report is retained with the same Ethics Committee.

Authors’ information

This study was conducted by Erica Gil, MPharm, in order to obtain Master Degree at the Pharmaceutical Program at the Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte.

Abbreviations

ALL: 

Acute lymphoblastic leukemia

AML: 

Acute myeloid leukemia

BM: 

Bone marrow

DS: 

Down syndrome

PB: 

Peripheral blood

WBC: 

White blood cell.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to the physicians and to the patients of the four institutions who had collaborated in this work.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Departamento de Análises Clínicas e Toxicológicas/ Laboratório de Imunologia, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte
(2)
Liga contra o Câncer. Departamento de Pesquisa Translacional

References

  1. Garcia DR, Bhatt S, Manvelyan M, de Souza MT, Binato R, Aguiar TF, Abdelhay E, Silva MLM: An unusual T-cell childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia harboring a yet unreported near-tetraploid karyotype. Mol Cytogenet 2011, 4: 20. 10.1186/1755-8166-4-20PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Morel F, Le Bris M-J, Douet-Guilbert N, Duchemin J, Herry A, Le Calvez G, Marion V, Berthou C, De Braekeleer M: Loss of X chromosome in childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Cancer Genet Cytogenet 2003, 125: 27–29.Google Scholar
  3. Debatin KM, Stahnke K, Fulda S: Hematological disorders and apoptosis. Nippon Naika Gakkai Zasshi 2003, 13: 149–158.Google Scholar
  4. Pui C-H, Relling MV, Downing JR: Acute lymphoblastic leukemia. N Engl J Med 2004, 350: 1535–1548. 10.1056/NEJMra023001View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Pui CH, Crist WM: Cytogenetic abnormalities in childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia correlates with clinical features and treatment outcome. Leukemia lymphoma 1992, 7: 259–274. 10.3109/10428199209049777View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Perkins D, Brennan S, Carstairs K, Bailey D, Pantalony D, Poon A, Fernandes B, Dubé I: Regional cancer cytogenetics: a report on 1,143 diagnostic cases. Cancer Genet Cytogenet 1997, 96: 64–80. 10.1016/S0165-4608(96)00363-9View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Amare P, Gladstone B, Varghese C, Pai S, Advani S: Clinical significance of cytogenetic findings at diagnosis and in remission in childhood and adult acute lymphoblastic leukemia: experience from India. Cancer Genet Cytogenet 1999, 110: 44–53. 10.1016/S0165-4608(98)00179-4View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Caspersson T, Zech L, Johansson C, Modest EJ: Identification of human chromosomes by DNA-binding fluorescent agents. Chromosoma 1970, 30: 215–227.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Seabright M: A rapid banding technique for human chromosomes. Lance 1971, 2: 971–972.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Al-Achkar W, Aljapawe A, Othman MAK, Wafa A: A de novo acute myeloid leukemia (AML-M4) case with a complex karyotype and yet unreported breakpoints. Mol Cytogenet 2013, 6: 18. 10.1186/1755-8166-6-18PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Zakaria Z, Md Ahid MF, Ismail A, Ten SK, Mohamad Nor N, Kamaluddin NR, Esa E, Kah Yuen L, Abdul Rahman EJ, Osman R: Chromosomal Aberrations in ETV6/RUNX1-positive Childhood Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia using 244 K Oligonucleotide Array Comparative Genomic Hybridization. Mol Cytogenet 2012, 5: 41. 10.1186/1755-8166-5-41PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Perez-Vera P, Mujica-Sanchez M, Carnevale A, Rivera-Luna R, Paredes R, Martinez A, Frias S: Cytogenetics in acute lymphoblastic leukemia in Mexican children: an institutional experience. Arch Med Res 2001, 32: 202–207. 10.1016/S0188-4409(01)00260-0View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Pui CH, Raimondi SC, Dodge RK, Rivera GK, Fuchs LA, Abromowitch M, Look AT, Furman WL, Crist WM, Williams DL: Prognostic importance of structural chromosomal abnormalities in children with hyperdiploid (greater than 50 chromosomes) acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Blood 1989, 73: 1963–1967.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Hasle H: Pattern of malignant disorders in individuals with Down’s syndrome. Lancet Oncol 2001, 2: 429–436. 10.1016/S1470-2045(00)00435-6View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Slovak ML, Kopecky KJ, Cassileth PA, Harrington DH, Theil KS, Mohamed A, Paietta E, Willman CL, Head DR, Rowe JM, Forman SJ, Appelbaum FR: Karyotypic analysis predicts outcome of preremission and postremission therapy in adult acute myeloid leukemia: a Southwest Oncology Group/Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Study. Blood 2000, 96: 4075–4083.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Silva MLM, Ornellas De Souza MH, Ribeiro RC, Land MGP, Boulhosa De Azevedo AM, Vasconcelos F, Otero L, Vasconcelos Z, Bouzas LF, Abdelhay E: Cytogenetic analysis of 100 consecutive newly diagnosed cases of acute lymphoblastic leukemia in Rio de Janeiro. Cancer Genet Cytogenet 2002, 137: 85–90. 10.1016/S0165-4608(02)00535-6View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Hasle H, Clemmensen IH, Mikkelsen M: Risks of leukaemia and solid tumours in individuals with Down’s syndrome. Lance 2000, 355: 165–169. 10.1016/S0140-6736(99)05264-2View ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Gil et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2013

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.