PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
May 29, 2026Journal of Clinical Oncology0 citations

Whole genome sequencing to identify novel, clinically relevant findings missed by standard of care for patients with myelodysplastic syndrome.

View Full Paper
ABAlex BatallerRHRobert HuetherSLSanam Loghavi

Key Points

  • The study aims to evaluate the efficacy of whole genome sequencing in identifying clinically relevant genetic alterations that standard care may miss in myelodysplastic syndrome.
  • Retrospective analysis of 43 patient samples using Tempus xH WGS assay.
  • Comparison of WGS results with standard of care data including cytogenetics and targeted sequencing.
  • Conducted unblinded analysis on 10 samples and blinded analysis on 33 samples.
  • WGS identified 143 total events in the blinded study, achieving 100% sensitivity.
  • 21 novel, high-confidence variants were found in 39% of samples, including critical genomic alterations.
  • Key findings included MECOM rearrangements, KMT2A alterations, and a TP53 locus deletion, emphasizing WGS's potential clinical benefits.

Abstract

6570 Background: Genomic analysis is critical for accurate diagnosis and risk stratification for patients with myeloid malignancies. Whole genome sequencing (WGS) has the ability to capture a breadth of alterations and has the potential to complement or replace current genomic profiling techniques. We sought to validate the molecular findings from Tempus xH, a WGS based assay, with standard of care SOC results from a major academic institution (MDACC). Methods: We retrospectively sequenced 43 patient samples from MDACC using the Tempus xH WGS assay. SOC data from cytogenetics (karyotype +/- FISH), 81-gene panel sequencing, and/or optical genome mapping OGM (n=10), was regarded as the source of truth. We performed a two-part study: an initial unblinded analysis (n=10) comparing WGS to SOC, followed by a blinded unbiased comparative review (n=33). Clinically relevant alterations were compared between the SOC and xH reportable range workflows. We excluded mutations with = metaphases). Structural variants (SVs) were included if they overlapped orthogonal truth or were recurrent myeloid fusions. Results: In the unblinded analysis (n=10), WGS detected 53 clinically reported alterations, yielding 94% sensitivity. Single nucleotide variants (SNVs) had 100% sensitivity, and 18/20 CNA events and 6/7 SVs were detected. The single missed SV event was a derivative chromosome (chr), between chr1 and chr20, identified by cytogenetics with breakpoints over the masked centromere region of the WGS. However, WGS detected CNAs in chr arms of 1 and 20, signalling the event was captured yet not resolved as a derivative chr. Two copy losses on chr 19 (complete loss and p-arm) and an ASXL1 frameshift were detected by WGS but not by SOC. In the blinded study (n=33), WGS detected 143 events, including 124 true positives and no alterations from SOC went undetected by WGS demonstrating 100% sensitivity. WGS identified 24/24 of the CNAs detected by cytogenetics. Among all specimens, 21 novel, high confidence variants were identified in 11 specimens (39%) by WGS that were not detected by SOC; including 14 CNAs, two SNVs, and five SVs, including diagnostically and/or prognostically critical alterations: 2 MECOM rearrangements, 1 KMT2A -PTD, an 11MB deletion in chr 17p ( TP53 locus), and a focal RUNX1 deletion highlighting the potential clinical benefit of WGS. Conclusions: WGS accurately recapitulates results from targeted NGS panels, OGM and cytogenetics and advances our understanding of MDS biology. xH WGS uncovered a significant number of novel, clinically relevant and potentially targetable findings undetected by SOC. WGS provides a complementary view of the genome, identifying actionable and prognostic markers helping clinicians make more informed treatment decisions.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Bataller et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a192d2dfab5b468c4415f2dhttps://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2026.44.16_suppl.6570
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1A prospective Study of whole genome sequencing for genomic profiling and risk determination in MDS2025
  2. 2Abstract 5300: Clinical utility of whole genome sequencing for upfront risk stratification in AML and MDS patients2026
  3. 3Comprehensive and rapid detection of genomic alterations in pediatric leukemias using whole-genome sequencing with adaptive sampling2025 · 1 citations
  4. 4MDS without clonal marker: When depth outperforms breadth2025
  5. 5Abstract B011: Whole genome sequencing can reproduce all standard-of-care diagnostics for childhood cancer: Results from two national systems2024