Optical genome mapping for cytogenomic analysis of hematological neoplasms

• Published in: Journal of clinical oncology Vol. 41; no. 16_suppl; p. e19016
• Main Authors: Tang, Guilin, Tang, Zhenya, Kanagal-Shamanna, Rashmi, Kantarjian, Hagop M., Garcia-Manero, Guillermo, Cuglievan, Branko, McCall, David, Jain, Preetesh, Robinson, Melissa, Reynolds, Alex, Danos, Christopher P, Cardona, Griselda Jazmin, Geiger, Christopher P, Yang, Su, Medeiros, L Jeffrey, Toruner, Gokce A
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: 01.06.2023
• ISSN: 0732-183X; 1527-7755
• DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2023.41.16_suppl.e19016

e19016 Background: Optical genome mapping (OGM) provides a genome-wide analysis for structural variants and copy number changes in one-assay. Compared with conventional G-banded karyotyping (GBK), OGM provides significantly higher resolution and does not require metaphase cells. In this study, we assessed the added value of OGM for cytogenomic analysis of hematological neoplasms. Methods: OGM was performed on blood or bone marrow using Saphyr from Bionano Genomics on 63 patients diagnosed with various types of hematological malignancy (see Table). Variant calling was made by the Rare Variant Analysis pipeline on Bionano Access after applying recommended filters. Each patient had karyotype and/or fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) results available for comparison and confirmation. Only Tier 1 (pathogenic) and Tier 2 (likely pathologic) abnormalities were included for comparison purposes in this study. Results: The results were completely concordant between GBK/FISH and OGM in 30 (47.6%) patients, including 10 patients who showed no cytogenetic abnormality (normal). Fully discordant results were found in 8 (12.7%) patients: 2 had an abnormal karyotype but normal OGM, the discrepancy was mainly due to the clonal size (<20%) below the limitation of detection of OGM; 6 had a normal karyotype but cytogenetic abnormalities were detected by OGM, the discrepancy was mainly due to failure of tumor cells growth (n=5) or subtle cytogenetic abnormality undetectable by GBK (n=1). Partially concordant results between karyotype/FISH and OGM were observed in 25 (40%) patients, some abnormalities were detected by both, some were detected by GBK alone (n=4) or by OGM alone (n=25), the latter group included 10 cases with chromothripsis which only be detected by OGM. Overall, OGM provided clinically significant information in 14 (22%) patients regarding diagnosis, risk stratification, and/or identifying therapeutic targets. The added value was more common in lymphoid neoplasms (9 of 27 patients, 33%). Conclusions: OGM provides additional clinically relevant cytogenetic information in the workup of hematological neoplasms. This added value is more apparent in lymphoid neoplasms. These improvements are largely contributable to the higher resolution provided by OGM and analysis independent of metaphase cells. A major limitation of OGM usage is the need for a clonal size of at least 20%. [Table: see text]