English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

A 52-yr-old woman presented with therapy-related acute myeloid leukemia. A bone marrow biopsy showed 21% blasts with a myeloid phenotype and no other notable features such as abnormal eosinophils. Routine nanofluidics-based reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (PCR) leukemia translocation panel designed to screen for recurrent genetic abnormalities in acute leukemia detected an inversion 16 transcript variant E. This prompted rereview of karyotype and fluorescence in situ hybridization studies, which confirmed inv(16), leading to appropriate prognostication and modification of treatment. This case underscores the utility of a powerful molecular screening method for the routine detection of recurrent genetic abnormalities of acute myeloid leukemia. It was especially useful in this case because of the lack of characteristic morphologic findings seen in inversion 16 and the difficulty in its detection by conventional karyotype analysis.

molecular case studies

Incidental identification of inv(16)(p13.1q22)/<i>CBFB</i>–<i>MYH11</i> variant transcript in a patient with therapy-related acute myeloid leukemia by routine leukemia translocation panel screen: implications for diagnosis and therapy

Incidental identification of inv(16)(p13.1q22)/CBFB–MYH11 variant transcript in a patient with therapy-related acute myeloid leukemia by routine leukemia translocation panel screen: implications for diagnosis and therapy