Next Article in Journal
Interactions Between Monocarboxylate Transporter MCT1 Gene Variants and the Kinetics of Blood Lactate Production and Removal After High-Intensity Efforts: A Cross-Sectional Study
Previous Article in Journal
Casparian Strip Fortification as a Defense Mechanism to Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. vasinfectum Race 4 Infection in a Highly Resistant Gossypium barbadense Cultivar
Previous Article in Special Issue
Hi-C Technology Reveals Actionable Gene Fusions and Rearrangements in Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma Unidentified by Conventional FISH
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Uncovering the PML::RARA Fusion in Cytogenetically Cryptic and FISH-Negative Acute Promyelocytic Leukemia—A Case Report and Comprehensive Literature Review

1
Hematopathology, Department of Pathology and Genomic Medicine, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA 19107, USA
2
Clinical Cytogenomics Laboratory, Department of Pathology and Genomic Medicine, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, PA 19107, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Genes 2025, 16(10), 1159; https://doi.org/10.3390/genes16101159
Submission received: 28 August 2025 / Revised: 18 September 2025 / Accepted: 25 September 2025 / Published: 29 September 2025

Abstract

The PML::RARA fusion resulting from t(15;17) is the genetic hallmark of acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL), typically detected by cytogenetics and/or fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) studies. Rarely, APL patients present with normal cytogenetics and FISH findings, complicating diagnosis and delaying life-saving therapy. We report a 23-year-old male with clinical, morphologic and immunophenotypic features consistent with APL but negative for FISH studies. Despite prompt initiation of all-trans retinoic acid (ATRA) based on clinical suspicion, the patient succumbed to intracranial hemorrhage. Quantitative reverse transcriptase PCR (qRT-PCR) confirmed a long isoform PML::RARA fusion. A review of 34 published cytogenetics- and FISH-negative cases since 1995 demonstrates that RT-PCR-based methods reliably detect cryptic fusions. While advanced genomic approaches may identify these fusions at higher resolution, their accessibility, complexity, cost, and turnaround time often limit diagnostic utility in the urgent setting of APL. Given the extreme rarity of this subset, cytogenetics and FISH remain the standard frontline tests; however, these cases underscore the critical need to incorporate molecular testing into routine workflows. Early recognition and timely therapy are essential to reducing mortality in cryptic APL, and these cases also provide insight into mechanisms of atypical leukemia biology.

1. Introduction

Acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL), with approximately 800 new cases annually, accounts for approximately 10% of adult myeloid leukemia in the United States [1]. Morphologically, it is characterized by immature hypergranular promyelocytes with abundant cytoplasm, irregular nuclei, fine azurophilic granules, and Auer rods in bone marrow and/or peripheral blood. Immunophenotyping typically shows expression of CD13, CD33, CD117, and MPO, with absent or low expression of CD34, HLA-DR, and markers of granulocytic differentiation [2,3].
The cytogenetic hallmark of APL is the reciprocal translocation t(15;17)(q22;q21) involving the PML gene on 15q24 and the RARA gene on 17q21. This fusion blocks myeloid maturation at the promyelocytic stage but generally confers a favorable prognosis due to sensitivity to all-trans retinoic acid (ATRA) and arsenic trioxide (ATO) [2,3,4]. Approximately 90% of patients carry the balanced translocation, while 6% have complex rearrangements and 0.7% have cryptic translocations; and all result in the oncogenic PML::RARA fusion, typically detectable by conventional karyotyping or fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) using a PML/RARA dual-fusion probe. The remaining 1~2% of cases involve non-PML fusion partners for RARA, which can be identified by karyotyping or by FISH with a RARA break-apart probe [5].
While karyotyping and FISH remain standard-of-care diagnostic approaches, RT-PCR provides greater resolution by defining fusion isoforms and is primarily applied to monitor minimal residual disease. Due to different breakpoints in the PML and RARA genes, three major chimeric isoforms (bcr1, bcr2, and bcr3) and more than 30 atypical isoforms of the PML::RARA fusion have been identified. With the exception of a few non-PML fusions (e.g., ZBTB16/PLZF::RARA), most patients respond well to ATRA- and ATO-based therapy, underscoring the importance of timely and accurate diagnosis [3,4]. Exceptionally rare cases of APL with classic clinical and morphological features but negative results by cytogenetics and FISH have been reported. In these patients, PML::RARA fusion transcripts can still be identified by RT-PCR, and excellent outcomes are achieved when treatment is initiated promptly [6,7].
Herein, we describe a new APL case with typical morphology and immunophenotype but negative cytogenetics and FISH results, in which a long PML::RARA transcript was identified by RT-PCR. We also review the clinicopathologic features of 34 similar cases reported since 1995 and discuss alternative molecular and genomic approaches that may aid diagnosis. Of note, APL cases with cytogenetic abnormalities involving chromosome 15 or 17, or with abnormal FISH signals, even if atypical, were excluded. Cases with RARB, RARG, or some MLL and NPM1 rearrangements which can clinically and morphologically mimic typical APL with RARA rearrangements, are not addressed in this manuscript, as they have been thoroughly reviewed elsewhere [3,4]. Additionally, cases with incidental t(15;17) translocations lacking clinical symptoms or molecular evidence of gene fusions were also excluded.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Clinical and Pathological Examination

Clinical data, including history, presentation, laboratory findings, management, and disease course, were obtained from chart review. Peripheral blood smears were prepared and examined using the Wright-Giemsa method.

2.2. Flow Cytometry

Expression of cell surface and intracellular markers was assessed by flow cytometric immunophenotyping using the FACSLyric cytometer (Becton Dickinson, San Jose, CA, USA). A six-color panel including FITC, PE, PerCP-Cy5.5, PE-Cy7, APC, and APC-H7-conjugated antibodies was employed to evaluate lineage-specific antigens. Intracellular staining was performed using the Fix & Perm Cell Permeabilization Kit (Caltag Medsystems Ltd., Buckingham, UK), following surface staining. Data were analyzed using FACSLyric Suite and Beckman Coulter Kaluza analysis software version 1.2 with CD45 versus side scatter gating.

2.3. Conventional Cytogenetic and Interphase Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization (FISH) Studies

Standard direct harvest and 24 h unstimulated cell culture were conducted with peripheral blood cells. Interphase FISH was carried out using dual-color dual-fusion (DCDF) PML/RARA translocation and RARA break-apart (BAP) probe sets (CytoTest Inc., Rockville, MD, USA). A one-hour STAT FISH was performed according to the manufacturer’s instruction. Karyotyping and FISH images capture and analysis were conducted with the ASI system (Applied Spectrum Imaging, Carlsbad, CA, USA). Findings were analyzed and interpreted according to the International System for Human Cytogenetic Nomenclature (ISCN) 2020.

2.4. Literature Review

A PubMed search was performed using the keywords “acute promyelocytic leukemia,” “atypical,” “cryptic,” “cytogenetic negative,” and “FISH negative.” Articles published in both English and non-English were considered. No specific publication date range was applied to ensure comprehensive coverage of all available cases. The literature search was conducted independently by two researchers, and the senior author assessed all cases and finalized the list for inclusion. Reviews, case reports, and original research articles were all included. Clinical, cytogenetic, or molecular features of selected cases with atypical or cryptic acute promyelocytic leukemia were carefully reviewed. Based on the available data, only cases with typical normal DCDF PML::RARA FISH signals, typical normal RARA BAP signals, normal karyograms, or abnormal karyograms not involving chromosomes 15 and 17 were included.

3. Results

3.1. Case Study

A 23-year-old male presented to the emergency department with left upper extremity weakness, occurring two days after undergoing a dental cleaning. Imaging revealed an intracranial hemorrhage, necessitating an urgent decompressive hemicraniectomy. Flow cytometry analysis demonstrated a cell population characterized by CD4−, CD10−, CD11b−, CD11c−, CD13+, CD14−, CD16−, CD33+, CD34−, CD38+, CD56−, CD64+(dim), CD117+, CD235a−, HLA-DR−, cCD3−, cCD22−, cCD79a−, MPO+, and TdT- expression (Figure 1). Peripheral blood smear examination identified abnormal promyelocytes (Figure 2A,B). These findings were consistent with acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL). However, STAT FISH analyses for PML::RARA fusion and RARA break-apart were negative (Figure 2E,F). Despite the absence of cytogenetic and FISH evidence, a diagnosis of APL was made based on the morphology and immunophenotypic profile. Treatment with all-trans retinoic acid (ATRA) was initiated immediately. Unfortunately, the patient’s post-operative course was complicated by severe coagulopathy, pancytopenia, and multi-organ failure, ultimately resulting in death seven days after admission. Histomorphological examination of the specimen from the right-sided temporectomy revealed multiple brain parenchymal hemorrhages with dense clusters of leukemia cells that stained positive for myeloperoxidase (MPO) (Figure 2C,D). Subsequent reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) analysis, performed at an external commercial laboratory, was reported a week later, confirmed the presence of a PML::RARA long fusion transcript. Thus, the diagnosis of APL was established despite the negative findings from conventional cytogenetic studies.

3.2. Literature Review

Table 1 summarizes the clinical, histomorphological, and molecular genetic profiles of 34 APL patients lacking cytogenetic or FISH evidence of t(15;17). The median age was approximately 35~40 years (range 12~67), with a nearly equal male-to-female distribution. Most presented with bleeding, cytopenias, and laboratory evidence of disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC) at the time of hospital admission. Morphologically, most cases showed classic hypergranular promyelocytes. Two cases exhibited microgranular variants, one showed a mixture of classic hypergranular promyelocytes with a high proportion of microgranular promyelocytes, and one was consistent with AML-FAB M5. Although t(15;17) was not detected by cytogenetics or FISH, all patients showed PML::RARA fusion transcripts by RT-PCR. The long (bcr1) isoform was most common (14 cases), followed by the short (bcr3) isoform (12 cases). The variant (bcr2) isoform was rare, observed in 2 patients. One patient had both bcr1 and bcr2 isoforms. The remaining five patients were positive for fusion transcripts without specification of the isoforms. Additional abnormalities, including trisomy 8, del(5q), del(9q), and i(17)(q10), were observed in a minority of cases but did not affect the molecular diagnosis. Treatment strategies evolved over time. Early cohorts were managed with ATRA combined with chemotherapy, whereas more recent patients received ATRA with arsenic trioxide (ATO), with or without chemotherapy. Overall, most patients achieved hematologic remission, although early deaths still occurred, predominantly due to hemorrhagic complications (intracranial or pulmonary) and, less frequently, severe infections. Early mortality, largely due to hemorrhagic complications, remained a significant cause of treatment failure. Long-term survival data were not available, but the modern ATRA + ATO-based regimens appear to be associated with superior remission durability.
Table 1. Clinical, Histomorphological, and Molecular Genetic Profiles of 34 Cytogenetics- and FISH-Negative APL Cases Reviewed in This Study ¥.
Table 1. Clinical, Histomorphological, and Molecular Genetic Profiles of 34 Cytogenetics- and FISH-Negative APL Cases Reviewed in This Study ¥.
No.Age/
Sex
WBC (109/L)Hb (g/dL)Plt (109/L)Pro-myelocytesImmuno-phenotypeCoagulation TestsDIC at DxReason for PresentationKaryogramFISH #RT-PCR *TreatmentSurvival (Months)
/Terminal Event
CRPMID
139/F242.28.820Yes 1CD13+, CD33+, MPO+, HLA- DR+; CD34−PT↑, aPTT↑YesHistory of CML with persistent fever, malaise, and weight loss46,XX,t(9;22)[20]NDS (bcr3)IDA
+ Ara-C
No (5)
/Bilateral mycotic pneumonia
Yes7736444 [8]
(Emilia, 1995)
225/F2.98.39YesCD33+; HLA-DR−PT↑, FDP↑,
fibrinogen↓,
aPTT (nl)
YesPurpura and nasal bleeding46,XX,del(9)(q22)[20]NDL (bcr1)IDA
+ ATRA
+ Ara-C
No (<1)
/ICH
No10484977 [9]
(Yamamoto, 1999)
3N/AN/AN/AN/AYesN/AN/AN/AN/A45,XY,add(2)(q37),−7,add(9)(p22)/45,idem,add(10)(p14)NDL (bcr1)N/AN/AN/A10942371 [10]
(Grimwade, 2000)
4N/AN/AN/AN/AYesN/AN/AN/AN/A46,XY[20]NDL (bcr1)N/AN/AN/A10942371 [10]
(Grimwade, 2000)
5N/AN/AN/AN/AYesN/AN/AN/AN/A46,XX[20]NDPositive (unclear variant)N/AN/AN/A10942371 [10]
(Grimwade, 2000)
6N/AN/AN/AN/AYesN/AN/AN/AN/A46,XX[20]NDS (bcr3)N/AN/AN/A10942371 [10]
(Grimwade, 2000)
7N/AN/AN/AN/AYesN/AN/AN/AN/A46,XY[29]NDPositive (unclear variant)N/AN/AN/A10942371 [10]
(Grimwadel, 2000)
8N/AN/AN/AN/AYesN/AN/AN/AN/A46,XY[20]NDV (bcr2)N/AN/AN/A10942371 [10]
(Grimwade, 2000)
948/F14.938.836YesCD13+, CD33+, MPO+, CD56+; HLA-DR−, CD34−PT↑, D-dimer↑, fibrinogen↓, AT (nl), aPTT (nl)NoVaginal bleeding, history of uterine myoma47,XY,+8[14]/46,XX[2]NDS (bcr3)IDA
+ ATRA
Yes (>1)Yes16797070 [11]
(Han, 2007)
1014/MN/AN/AN/AYes/hypo-cellularConfirmed APL, WHO criteriaN/AN/AN/A46,XY[20]NDS (bcr3)IDA
+ ATRA
No (10)
/GVHD
Yes17943164 [12]
(Kim, 2008)
1163/FN/AN/AN/AYesConfirmed APL, WHO criteriaN/AN/AN/A46,XX[20]NDS (bcr3)IDA
+ Ara-C
No (6)
/Pulmonary
hemorrhage
Yes17943164 [12]
(Kim, 2008)
1244/F1.512.649YesCD13+, CD33+, MPO+; HLA-DR−, CD34−N/AN/AImmature cells in peripheral blood46,XX,i(17)(q10)[12]/46,XX[8]NDL (bcr1)IDA
+ ATRA
+ Ara-C
Yes (>1)Yes18294238 [13]
(Huh J, 2008)
1350/F101.739.916YesCD13+, CD33+, CD117+, CD7+, MPO+; HLA-DR−, CD34−PT↑, FDP↑, fibrinogen↓,
D-dimer↑, aPTT (nl), AT (nl)
NoCough, fever, and general weakness for a month47,XY,+8[19]/46,XX[1]NDS (bcr3)IDA
+ ATRA
Yes (>5)Yes19893344 [14]
(Kim, 2009)
1439/F16.97.6174YesCD13+, CD33+, MPO+; HLA-DR−, CD34−fibrinogen↓, FDP↑, D-dimer↑, PT (nl), aPTT (nl)NoTwo weeks of fatigue, five days of high fever and irregular uterine bleeding46,XX,7q[7]+/46,XX[8]NDL (bcr1)ATRA
+ ATO
Yes (>2)Yes 219162322 [15]
(Wang, 2009)
1526/F0.67.7155YesCD13+, CD33+, CD117+; HLA-DR−, CD34−PT↑, INR↑,
aPTT (nl)
NoFever, pallor and bleeding gumsdel(5q)NDS (bcr 3)IDA
+ ATRA
Yes (>8)Yes19224461 [16]
(Choughule, 2009)
1633/F1.397.19.8YesCD13+, CD33+, CD117+; HLA-DR−, CD34−NormalNoFever and fatigueNormalNDS (bcr 3)ATOYes (>12)Yes19224461 [16]
(Choughule, 2009)
1746/M63.86.6146YesCD13+, CD33+, MPO+; CD117−, HLA-DR−, CD34−PT↑, aPTT↑, INR↑NoThree weeks of fatigue and intermittent feverdel(19p13), del(12q24.1), del(5)NDL (bcr1)IDA
+ ATRA
Yes (>8)Yes19224461 [16]
(Choughule, 2009)
1818/M16.59.537YesCD13+, CD33+, CD45+, CD117+; HLA-DR−, CD34−N/ANoHematuria and hematochezia46,XY[20]NDL (bcr1), V (bcr2)ATRAYes (>1)N/A21156244 [6]
(Kim, 2010)
1946/M1.710.618YesCD13+, CD33+, MPO+; HLA-DR−, CD34−PT↑, INR↑,
D-dimer↑
NoGengival bleeding92,XXYY[13]/46,XY[7]NDS (bcr3)IDA
+ ATRA
Yes (>14)Yes20417966 [17]
(Soriani, 2010)
2024/M64.3N/AN/AMicrogranular variantCD13+, CD33+, CD117+; CD45+, CD34+; HLA-DR−N/AYesSuboccipital headaches, nausea, photophobia, gingival bleeding, debilitating nuchal rigidity, and low-grade fevers46,XY[20]NDPositive (unclear variant)ATRA
+ ATO
+ Ara-C
Yes (>2)Yes22018276 [18]
(Lewis, 2011)
2123/M3.941236YesCD13+, CD33+; CD34−N/AN/AEcchymosis and thrombocytopenia47,XX,+8[19]/46,XY[1]NDL (bcr1)ATRA + Chemon/aYes22402611 [19]
(Yang, 2012)
2257/M6.828.940YesCD13+, CD33+, CD117+; HLA-DR−, CD34−N/AN/AOral ulcer, odynophagia,
anemia, and thrombocytopenia
46,XY[20]NDL (bcr1)ATRA
+ ATO
+ Ara-C
Yes (>5)Yes23370423 [20]
(Gruver, 2013)
2367/M1.910.889YesMPO+; CD34−, HLA-DR−PTT↓, fibrinogen↓, INR↑, D-dimer↑YesEasy bruising, fatigue, pancytopenia46,XY[20]NDPositive (unclear variant)ATRAN/AN/A25580502 [21]
(Rashidi, 2014)
2417/M9.9n/an/aYesCD13+, CD33+, CD117+; HLA-DR−, CD34−, CD11b−N/AYesgum bleeding, multiple ecchymoses, abdominal pain, and fever46,XY[20]NDL (bcr1)ATRA
+ ATO
+ Chemo
Yes (>24)Yes24561214 [22]
(Blanco, 2014)
2525/M5.211.630YesCD117+, CD64+, CD123+, CD13+, MPO+; CD34−, HLA-DR−PT↑, INR↑, TT↑N/AGum bleeding for over 20 days46,XY[20]NDS (bcr3)ATRA
+ ATO
+ IDA
Yes (>2)Yes27995890 [23]
(Wang, 2016)
2666/M2.95787No 3CD7+, CD13+, CD33+, CD34+, Cd38+, CD117+, CD38, HLA-DR+, MPO+PT↑, fibrinogen↑,
D-dimer↑,
aPTT (nl)
N/APetechiae or bruises on the lower limbs that lasted for half a month with intermittent fever and coughing46,XY[20]NDV (atypical) 4IDA
+ ATRA
+ Ara-C
Yes (>7)Yes31959056 [24]
(Zhang, 2020)
2757/Fn/a9.757Microgranular variantCD13+, CD33+, CD34+, CD117+, MPO+, CD2+; HLA-DR−, CD11b−,fibrinogen↓
D-dimer↑, PT (nl), PTT (nl),
NoBruising and gingival bleeding over a two-week period46,XX[20]NDL (bcr1)ATRA
+ ATO
Yes (>1)Yes31809670 [25]
(Schultz, 2020)
2817/M48.48.314YesCD13+, CD33+, CD38+, CD45+, CD64+, CD117+, HLA-DR+ (small subset), MPO +; CD34−fibrinogen↓,
D-dimer↑, PTT↑, TT (nl)
YesUnresponsive during a seizure after two-day history of nausea, blood-tinged vomiting, lethargy, and right-sided weakness46,XY[20]NDPositive (unclear variant)ATRAN/AYes32366568 [1]
(Mai, 2020)
2912/F22.57.416YesCD33+, CD34+, MPO+, CD117+, HLA-DR+; CD11b−fibrinogen↓, PT↑, D-dimer (nl)YesMultiple ecchymoses46,XX[20]NDS (bcr3)ATRA
+ Chemo
Yes (>26)Yes32909480 [26]
(Avgerinou, 2020)
3056/F0.7896YesCD13+, CD33+, CD117+, CD34+, MPO+, CD56+; HLA DR−N/ANoGeneralized pruritis for 1 month, fever and headache
for 1 week
46,XX[20]NDL (bcr1)ATRA
+ DNR
+ Ara-C
No (<1)
/Refractory septic shock with encephalopathy
No33851647 [27]
(Arumugam, 2021)
3154/M1.69.469YesMPO+, CD117+; CD34−, HLA-DR−N/AN/ALeft leg swelling and a left femoral vein thrombosis, syncopal episode46,XY[20]NDL (bcr1)ATRA
+ ATO
N/AYes35572917 [28]
(Karlin, 2022)
3227/M4.6715144YesCD13+, CD33+, MPO+; CD34−, HLA-DR−PT↑, D-dimer↓, aPTT (nl), fibrinogen (nl),noImaging findings of marrow heterogeneity in T12 during L4–L5 disk herniation work-up46,XY[20]NDL (bcr1)ATRA
+ ATO
Yes (n/a)Yes37685882 [29]
(Mohebnasab, 2023)
3332/F1.578.168YesCD2+, CD13+, CD33+, CD117+, MPO+PT↑, fibrinogen↓, D-dimer↑, aPTT (nl),YesSeveral weeks of fatigue and easy bruising46,XX[20]NDS (bcr3)ATRA
+ ATO
Yes (n/a)Yes37685882 [29]
(Mohebnasab, 2023)
34 &23/M80.14.822YesCD13+, CD33+, CD38+, CD64+, CD117+, MPO+; HLA-DR−, D34−,PT↑, INR↑, PTT (nl)N/AIntracranial hemorrhage, 2 weeks post dental cleaning for painN/ANDL (bcr1)ATRANo (<1)
/Acute respiratory failure secondary to ICH
NoN/A
Abbreviations: Dx: diagnosis; CR: complete remission; nl: normal; ND: not detected; N/A: not available; ATRA: all-trans retinoic acid; ATO: arsenic trioxide; IDA: Idarubicin; Ara-C: Cytarabine; AT: antithrombin; PT: prothrombin time; aPTT: activated partial thromboplastin time; PTT: partial thromboplastin time; FDP: fibrin degradation products; INR: international normalized ratio; GVHD: graft-versus-host disease; ICH: Intracranial hemorrhage; unk: unknown. 1 Mixture of classic hypergranular promyelocytes with an unusually high proportion of microgranular promyelocytes. 2 Hematologic complete remission without molecular remission. 3 Bone marrow cells displayed irregular nuclear shapes and misty nucleoli, weakly positive for POX cytochemical staining, consistent with AML-FAB M5. 4 Novel cryptic atypical V (bcr2) transcript. ¥ Two cases with normal karyograms and negative FISH results in the initial study [30,31] were excluded, as abnormal FISH findings were identified retrospectively. # Includes testing with dual-color, dual-fusion PML/RARA translocation probe set and/or break-apart RARA probe. * Includes RT-PCR, qRT-PCR, and multiplex nested RT-PCR, with or without subsequent cDNA sequencing. & The current case.

4. Discussion

APL is a rare and aggressive AML subtype defined by the PML::RARA fusion. Conventional karyotyping and FISH are first-line diagnostic tests, while RT-PCR-based assays confirm transcript isoforms and enable evaluation of minimal residual disease (MRD) during clinical follow-ups. Rarely, patients with typical clinical and histomorphological features and a favorable response to ATRA+ATO therapy lack detectable PML::RARA fusion by these assays [6,7]. We systematically reviewed 34 reported cases of cytogenetics- and FISH-negative APL published since 1995, including both English- and non-English-language reports. To the best of our knowledge, this constitutes the most comprehensive review of this rare entity to date.
Clinically, these patients closely resemble those with classic t(15;17) translocations, showing comparable hematologic profiles, immunophenotypes, and coagulopathy features (Table 1). Mechanistically, submicroscopic insertions are believed to cause the fusion in most cases [9,10,30,31,32]. These insertions often involve multiple breakpoints and are mediated by microhomology-mediated break-induced replication (MMBIR) or fork stalling and template switching (FoSTeS), resulting in the formation of the PML::RARA fusion. This represents a distinct genomic event from the conventional reciprocal t(15;17), which arises via non-allelic homologous recombination (NAHR) or breakage at palindromic AT-rich repeats (PATRRs) [33,34]. Together, these diverse mechanisms suggest that genes involved in DNA replication or repair may drive leukemogenesis even prior to fusion formation, underscoring the potentially distinct biology of cryptic APL.
Diagnostic approaches reported in the literature are summarized in Table 2, with a focus on diagnostic yield, turnaround time (TAT), potential pitfalls, and clinical applicability. Conventional karyotyping remains foundational, detecting the classic t(15;17) translocation and additional chromosomal abnormalities in over 96% of cases [5]. However, its sensitivity is reduced in atypical cases due to dependence on high-quality metaphase spreads and inability to resolve cryptic rearrangements. Nevertheless, its genome-wide scope allows detection of co-existing abnormalities with prognostic or therapeutic significance. FISH assays offer rapid, high-sensitivity detection of typical and atypical fusions (98~100% yield) when PML/RARA dual-color dual-fusion and RARA break-apart probes are used in parallel [3,32,35]. Their short TAT (~3 h) makes them valuable for urgent diagnostic confirmation, particularly in life-threatening coagulopathy. Limitations include hybridization failure, signal overlap, and inability to detect very small insertions, which may account for the rare subset of cytogenetics- and FISH-negative cases. Nonetheless, their low-to-moderate cost and widespread availability ensure their continued role as frontline diagnostic tools. RT-PCR-based molecular assays provide rapid, high-resolution detection of PML::RARA isoforms and are essential for MRD monitoring, with qRT-PCR considered the gold standard [18,26]. These assays are widely available and affordable, though rare atypical breakpoints may generate false negatives [36]. Sequencing of RT-PCR products allows precise characterization of fusion variants, albeit with longer TAT and higher RNA quality requirements. Advanced genomic technologies, including array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH/tCGH), mate-pair sequencing (Mpseq), and optical genome mapping (OGM), enable detection of cryptic structural variants across broader genomic regions [30,37]. OGM, in particular, shows promise for resolving structural rearrangements and fusion breakpoints at a medium-level resolution [9]. However, these platforms require high-quality input material and specialized expertise, and challenges remain in detecting polyploidy, mosaicism, or rearrangements in heterochromatic or highly repetitive regions. TATs are longer (minimum 3~5 days), costs higher, and access restricted to specialized centers. At the highest resolution, rapid NGS panels, whole-genome and whole-exome sequencing (WGS/WES) provide targeted or comprehensive detection of fusion partners and profiling of co-existing aberrations [28,37]. Their application remains largely research-focused due to high cost, bioinformatics complexity, interpretation challenges, longer TAT, and the need for variant validation.
Collectively, these methods form a complementary, hierarchical diagnostic framework (Table 3). First-line testing with karyotyping, FISH, and RT-PCR is sufficient for most cases, offering high diagnostic yield, short TAT, and wide accessibility at relatively low cost. Advanced technologies such as OGM and WGS/WES are best reserved for ambiguous cases where conventional techniques fail, as well as for expanding our understanding of APL genomics. This tiered approach balances diagnostic precision with practical feasibility, while addressing the small but clinically significant subset of cytogenetics- and FISH-negative APL.
This review is limited by the small number of reported cases and incomplete documentation of clinical and demographic data, which precludes meaningful statistical analysis. The 34 cases identified across 25 manuscripts, including the present study (Table 1), lacked consistent information on ethnicity and racial background. Thirteen studies (52%) originated from groups in China, India, Japan, and Korea, and including our patient from India, 17 patients (50%) were presumably of Asian descent. Given the limited demographic, epidemiological, and socioeconomic data, no conclusions can be drawn about the role of genetic background or environmental factors in the pathogenesis of this ultra-rare APL subset. Furthermore, all studies were retrospective in design. Most were single case reports, with a few small case series, which limits the generalizability of the findings. Potential reporting bias and heterogeneity of the available data could not be confidently assessed. Supplementary Table S1 summarizes the limitations and potential bias for each case. These cases, however, point to a possible association between cryptic APL and ethnicity/race, emphasizing the need for more detailed reporting in future cases.
Despite the small cohort size, several important questions remain. First, it is unclear whether cryptic rearrangements detected by RT-PCR-based methods are balanced or unbalanced, as unbalanced fusions may acquire novel functions that influence phenotypic outcomes [38]. Second, the mutational spectrum of co-existing primary or secondary genetic alterations is poorly defined. Experimental studies in transgenic mice suggest that cooperating mutations are essential to drive full leukemic transformation [39]. In de novo APL, co-existing mutations, including point mutations in the PML::RARA fusion gene, occur in approximately ~70% of cases and also significantly contribute to relapse or therapy resistance [40,41]. These mutations are heterogeneous but may converge functionally to drive APL initiation and confer therapy resistance [23,24]. Third, the impact of such alterations on higher-order chromosome architecture, epigenetic regulation, and transcriptional networks remains largely unknown.
Clinically, APL patients lacking cytogenetic or FISH evidence face high risk of diagnostic delay and potentially fatal early hemorrhage [28]. Empiric initiation of ATRA upon clinical suspicion remains essential, even when first-line tests are negative. Emerging approaches, including OGM, long-read sequencing, and multi-omics technologies (epigenomics, transcriptomics, metabolomics), hold promise for illustrating cryptic mechanisms and revealing therapeutic targets. Despite major therapeutic advances, early mortality of APL remains ~15%. Studying this ultra-rare subset may not only improve outcomes in cryptic APL but also yield broader insights into APL biology and leukemogenesis.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/genes16101159/s1, Table S1. Study-Specific Limitations and Potential Biases in Reported Cytogenetics- and FISH-Negative APL Cases.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, data curation, original draft preparation and writing, B.N.D.; data curation and methodology, J.E.-S. and A.B.M.; investigation, resources and review, J.Z.G.; conceptualization, data curation, validation, original draft preparation and writing, J.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study was conducted as a retrospective review. Ethical review and approval were waived for this study in accordance with policies from the Thomas Jefferson Office of Human Research Protection (JOHRP) and the Jefferson Privacy Office.

Informed Consent Statement

This study was conducted as a retrospective review. Patient consent was waived in accordance with policies from the Thomas Jefferson Office of Human Research Protection (JOHRP) and the Jefferson Privacy Office.

Data Availability Statement

All supporting data for this study are included in this manuscript. Additional inquiries may be directed to the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Mai, B.; Liang, C.; Nguyen, A.; Wahed, A.; Chen, L. Cryptic Acute Promyelocytic Leukemia (APL) Presenting as Seizures in an Adolescent. Ann. Clin. Lab. Sci. 2020, 50, 270–273. [Google Scholar]
  2. Li, G.; Wu, J.; Li, R.; Pan, Y.; Ma, W.; Xu, J.; Nan, M.; Hou, L. Improvement of Early Death in Acute Promyelocytic Leukemia: A Population-Based Analysis. Clin. Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2023, 23, e78–e84. [Google Scholar]
  3. Zhang, X.; Sun, J.; Yu, W.; Jin, J. Current views on the genetic landscape and management of variant acute promyelocytic leukemia. Biomark. Res. 2021, 9, 33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Guarnera, L.; Ottone, T.; Fabiani, E.; Divona, M.; Savi, A.; Travaglini, S.; Falconi, G.; Panetta, P.; Rapanotti, M.C.; Voso, M.T. Atypical Rearrangements in APL-Like Acute Myeloid Leukemias: Molecular Characterization and Prognosis. Front. Oncol. 2022, 12, 871590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Gagnon, M.F.; Berg, H.E.; Meyer, R.G.; Sukov, W.R.; Van Dyke, D.L.; Jenkins, R.B.; Greipp, P.T.; Thorland, E.C.; Hoppman, N.L.; Xu, X.; et al. Typical, atypical and cryptic t(15;17)(q24;q21) (PML::RARA) observed in acute promyelocytic leukemia: A retrospective review of 831 patients with concurrent chromosome and PML::RARA dual-color dual-fusion FISH studies. Genes. Chromosomes Cancer 2022, 61, 629–634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Kim, M.J.; Cho, S.Y.; Kim, M.H.; Lee, J.J.; Kang, S.Y.; Cho, E.H.; Marschalek, R.; Meyer, C. FISH-negative cryptic PML-RARA rearrangement detected by long-distance polymerase chain reaction and sequencing analyses: A case study and review of the literature. Cancer Genet. Cytogenet. 2010, 203, 278–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Rashidi, A.; Fisher, S.I. FISH-negative, cytogenetically cryptic acute promyelocytic leukemia. Blood Cancer J. 2015, 5, e320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Emilia, G.; Marasca, R.; Longo, G.; Ferrari, M.G.; Notohamiprodjo, M.; Temperani, P.; Sacchi, S.; Torelli, G. Detection of PML-RAR alpha fusion transcript in Ph positive leukemia with acute promyelocytic phenotype lacking the t(15;17) cytogenetic abnormality. Cancer Genet. Cytogenet. 1995, 80, 95–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Yamamoto, K.; Hamaguchi, H.; Kobayashi, M.; Tsurukubo, Y.; Nagata, K. Terminal deletion of the long arm of chromosome 9 in acute promyelocytic leukemia with a cryptic PML/RAR alpha rearrangement. Cancer Genet. Cytogenet. 1999, 113, 120–125. [Google Scholar]
  10. Grimwade, D.; Biondi, A.; Mozziconacci, M.J.; Hagemeijer, A.; Berger, R.; Neat, M.; Howe, K.; Dastugue, N.; Jansen, J.; Radford-Weiss, I.; et al. Characterization of acute promyelocytic leukemia cases lacking the classic t(15;17): Results of the European Working Party. Groupe Francais de Cytogenetique Hematologique, Groupe de Francais d’Hematologie Cellulaire, UK Cancer Cytogenetics Group and BIOMED 1 European Community-Concerted Action “Molecular Cytogenetic Diagnosis in Haematological Malignancies”. Blood 2000, 96, 1297–1308. [Google Scholar]
  11. Han, J.Y.; Kim, K.E.; Kim, K.H.; Park, J.I.; Kim, J.S. Identification of PML-RARA rearrangement by RT-PCR and sequencing in an acute promyelocytic leukemia without t(15;17) on G-banding and FISH. Leuk. Res. 2007, 31, 239–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Kim, M.; Lim, J.; Kim, Y.; Han, K.; Lee, D.H.; Chung, N.G.; Cho, B.; Kim, H.K.; Eom, K.S.; Min, C.-K.; et al. The genetic characterization of acute promyelocytic leukemia with cryptic t(15;17) including a new recurrent additional cytogenetic abnormality i(17)(q10). Leukemia 2008, 22, 881–883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Huh, J.; Moon, H.; Chi, H.; Chung, W. Acute promyelocytic leukemia with i(17)(q10) on G-banding and PML/RARA rearrangement by RT-PCR without evidence of PML/RARA rearrangement on FISH. Int. J. Lab. Hematol. 2009, 31, 372–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Kim, K.E.; Woo, K.S.; Kim, S.H.; Han, J.Y. Detection of PML/RARA rearrangement by reverse transcriptase-PCR and sequencing in a case of microgranular acute promyelocytic leukemia lacking t(15;17) on karyotype and FISH. Korean J. Lab. Med. 2009, 29, 379–383. [Google Scholar]
  15. Wang, Y.; Fang, M.; Jing, Y.; Li, J.; Jiang, F.; Wang, Y. Derivative (7)t(7;8): The sole karyotype abnormality in acute promyelocytic leukemia with PML/RARA rearrangement identified by RT-PCR and sequence analysis. Leuk. Res. 2009, 33, e55–e58. [Google Scholar]
  16. Choughule, A.; Polampalli, S.; Amre, P.; Shinde, S.; Banavali, S.; Prabhash, K.; Nair, R.; Subramanian, P.G.; Gujral, S.; Parikh, P.M. Identification of PML/RARalpha fusion gene transcripts that showed no t(15;17) with conventional karyotyping and fluorescent in situ hybridization. Genet. Mol. Res. 2009, 8, 1–7. [Google Scholar]
  17. Soriani, S.; Cesana, C.; Farioli, R.; Scarpati, B.; Mancini, V.; Nosari, A. PML/RAR-alpha fusion transcript and polyploidy in acute promyelocytic leukemia without t(15;17). Leuk. Res. 2010, 34, e261–e263. [Google Scholar]
  18. Lewis, C.; Patel, V.; Abhyankar, S.; Zhang, D.; Ketterling, R.P.; McClure, R.F.; Persons, D.L. Microgranular variant of acute promyelocytic leukemia with normal conventional cytogenetics, negative PML/RARA FISH and positive PML/RARA transcripts by RT-PCR. Cancer Genet. 2011, 204, 522–523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Yang, J.J.; Park, T.S.; Kim, M.J.; Cho, E.H.; Oh, S.H.; Jeon, B.R.; Oh, D.; Huh, J.Y.; Marschalek, R.; Meyer, C. Acute promyelocytic leukemia with trisomy 8 showing normal PML-RARA FISH signal patterns: Diagnostic application of long-distance polymerase chain reaction in molecularly discrepant leukemia cases. Ann. Hematol. 2012, 91, 1645–1648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Gruver, A.M.; Rogers, H.J.; Cook, J.R.; Ballif, B.C.; Schultz, R.A.; Batanian, J.R.; Fesler, M.J.; Tubbs, R.R. Modified array-based comparative genomic hybridization detects cryptic and variant PML-RARA rearrangements in acute promyelocytic leukemia lacking classic translocations. Diagn. Mol. Pathol. 2013, 22, 10–21. [Google Scholar]
  21. Rashidi, A.; Fisher, S.I. FISH: Negative. Morphology: Positive. Blood 2014, 124, 3501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Blanco, E.M.; Curry, C.V.; Lu, X.Y.; Sarabia, S.F.; Redell, M.S.; Lopez-Terrada, D.H.; Roy, A. Cytogenetically cryptic and FISH-negative PML/RARA rearrangement in acute promyelocytic leukemia detected only by PCR: An exceedingly rare phenomenon. Cancer Genet. 2014, 207, 48–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Wang, Y.F.; Liu, J.; Dong, F.; Tian, L.; Wang, J.; Xi, L.Y.; Ke, X.Y. The study of one case of APL with rare cryptic PML-RARalpha fusion gene and the literatures review. Zhonghua Xue Ye Xue Za Zhi 2016, 37, 1001–1002. [Google Scholar]
  24. Zhang, Z.; Xu, Y.; Jiang, M.; Kong, F.; Chen, Z.; Liu, S.; Li, F. Identification of a new cryptic PML-RARalpha fusion gene without t(15;17) and biallelic CEBPA mutation in a case of acute promyelocytic leukemia: A case detected only by RT-PCR but not cytogenetics and FISH. Cancer Biol. Ther. 2020, 21, 309–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Schultz, M.J.; Blackburn, P.R.; Cogbill, C.H.; Pitel, B.A.; Smadbeck, J.B.; Johnson, S.H.; Vasmatzis, G.; Rech, K.L.; Sukov, W.R.; Greipp, P.T.; et al. Characterization of a cryptic PML-RARA fusion by mate-pair sequencing in a case of acute promyelocytic leukemia with a normal karyotype and negative RARA FISH studies. Leuk. Lymphoma 2020, 61, 975–978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Avgerinou, G.; Katsibardi, K.; Filippidou, M.; Tzanoudaki, M.; Papadhimitriou, S.I.; Kattamis, A. Cytogenetically cryptic and fish negative PML/RARA rearrangement in acute promyelocytic leukemia detected by RT-PCR. Leuk. Lymphoma 2020, 61, 3526–3528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Arumugam, J.R.; Karthik Bommannan, B.K.; Kalaiyarasi, J.P.; Sundersingh, S. Cytogenetics and FISH negative cryptic acute promyelocytic leukemia with CD56 expression. Indian. J. Pathol. Microbiol. 2021, 64, 406–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Karlin, K.; Bryke, C.; Dias, A.; Michaels, P. Cytogenetically cryptic PML::RARA fusion in acute promyelocytic leukemia: Testing strategies in the modern era. Leuk. Res. Rep. 2022, 17, 100320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Mohebnasab, M.; Li, P.; Hong, B.; Dunlap, J.; Traer, E.; Fan, G.; Press, R.D.; Moore, S.R.; Xie, W. Cytogenetically Cryptic Acute Promyelocytic Leukemia: A Diagnostic Challenge. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2023, 24, 13075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. George, G.V.; Elsadawi, M.; Evans, A.G.; Ali, S.; Zhang, B.; Iqbal, M.A. Utilization of RT-PCR and Optical Genome Mapping in Acute Promyelocytic Leukemia with Cryptic PML::RARA Rearrangement: A Case Discussion and Systemic Literature Review. Genes. 2024, 16, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Goldschmidt, N.; Yehuda-Gafni, O.; Abeliovich, D.; Slyusarevsky, E.; Rund, D. Interstitial insertion of RARalpha gene into PML gene in a patient with acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL) lacking the classic t(15;17). Hematology 2010, 15, 332–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Campbell, L.J.; Oei, P.; Brookwell, R.; Shortt, J.; Eaddy, N.; Ng, A.; Chew, E.; Browett, P. FISH detection of PML-RARA fusion in ins(15;17) acute promyelocytic leukaemia depends on probe size. Biomed. Res. Int. 2013, 2013, 164501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Carvalho, C.M.; Lupski, J.R. Mechanisms underlying structural variant formation in genomic disorders. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2016, 17, 224–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Weckselblatt, B.; Rudd, M.K. Human Structural Variation: Mechanisms of Chromosome Rearrangements. Trends Genet. 2015, 31, 587–599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Brockman, S.R.; Paternoster, S.F.; Ketterling, R.P.; Dewald, G.W. New highly sensitive fluorescence in situ hybridization method to detect PML/RARA fusion in acute promyelocytic leukemia. Cancer Genet. Cytogenet. 2003, 145, 144–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Bennour, A.; Tabka, I.; Youssef, Y.B.; Zaier, M.; Hizem, S.; Khelif, A.; Saad, A.; Sennana, H. A PML/RARA chimeric gene on chromosome 12 in a patient with acute promyelocytic leukemia (M4) associated with a new variant translocation: T(12;15;17)(q24;q24;q11). Med. Oncol. 2013, 30, 409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Welch, J.S.; Westervelt, P.; Ding, L.; Larson, D.E.; Klco, J.M.; Kulkarni, S.; Wallis, J.; Chen, K.; Payton, J.E.; Fulton, R.S.; et al. Use of whole-genome sequencing to diagnose a cryptic fusion oncogene. JAMA 2011, 305, 1577–1584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Weckselblatt, B.; Hermetz, K.E.; Rudd, M.K. Unbalanced translocations arise from diverse mutational mechanisms including chromothripsis. Genome Res. 2015, 25, 937–947. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Liquori, A.; Ibanez, M.; Sargas, C.; Sanz, M.A.; Barragan, E.; Cervera, J. Acute Promyelocytic Leukemia: A Constellation of Molecular Events around a Single PML-RARA Fusion Gene. Cancers 2020, 12, 624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Fasan, A.; Haferlach, C.; Perglerova, K.; Kern, W.; Haferlach, T. Molecular landscape of acute promyelocytic leukemia at diagnosis and relapse. Haematologica 2017, 102, e222–e224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Iaccarino, L.; Ottone, T.; Alfonso, V.; Cicconi, L.; Divona, M.; Lavorgna, S.; Travaglini, S.; Ferrantini, A.; Falconi, G.; Baer, C.; et al. Mutational landscape of patients with acute promyelocytic leukemia at diagnosis and relapse. Am. J. Hematol. 2019, 94, 1091–1097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Figure 1. Flow cytometry analysis of peripheral blood identified blasts with high side scatter (A) that are positive for CD13, CD33 (B), MPO (C), and CD117 (D). Blasts are negative for CD34 (D), HLA-DR (E), and CD56 (F).
Figure 1. Flow cytometry analysis of peripheral blood identified blasts with high side scatter (A) that are positive for CD13, CD33 (B), MPO (C), and CD117 (D). Blasts are negative for CD34 (D), HLA-DR (E), and CD56 (F).
Genes 16 01159 g001
Figure 2. FISH and cellular morphological findings. (A,B) Peripheral blood smear demonstrating numerous promyelocytes with folded and bilobed nuclei with immature chromatin. (C,D) Right-sided temporectomy specimen demonstrating multiple brain parenchymal hemorrhages with dense clusters of MPO-positive leukemia cells. (E) Interphase FISH study using the DCDF PML/RARA probe set showing a normal pattern with two isolated read and green signals. (F) Interphase FISH study using the BAP RARA probe set showing a normal pattern with 2 fusion signals.
Figure 2. FISH and cellular morphological findings. (A,B) Peripheral blood smear demonstrating numerous promyelocytes with folded and bilobed nuclei with immature chromatin. (C,D) Right-sided temporectomy specimen demonstrating multiple brain parenchymal hemorrhages with dense clusters of MPO-positive leukemia cells. (E) Interphase FISH study using the DCDF PML/RARA probe set showing a normal pattern with two isolated read and green signals. (F) Interphase FISH study using the BAP RARA probe set showing a normal pattern with 2 fusion signals.
Genes 16 01159 g002
Table 2. Comparison of methods reported in the literature for evaluating cytogenetics- and FISH-negative APL cases. All performance metrics refer exclusively to APL patients.
Table 2. Comparison of methods reported in the literature for evaluating cytogenetics- and FISH-negative APL cases. All performance metrics refer exclusively to APL patients.
MethodApplicationAbnormalities DetectedAPL YieldSTAT TATCauses of ErrorAvailabilityCost
KaryotypingStandard of caret(15;17) and all other chromosomal alterations>96%2 daysPoor metaphase quality, culture failure, submicroscopic cryptic translocationsWidely availableLow
FISH–PML/RARA DCDFStandard of care; Diagnostic confirmationTypical and atypical PML::RARA fusion~98%3 hHybridization failure, signal overlap, small insertions leading to absent or weak signalsWidely availableLow–Moderate
FISH–RARA BAPStandard of care; Diagnostic confirmationRARA rearrangements (PML and non-PML partners)~100%3 hHybridization failure, signal overlap, small insertions leading to absent or weak signalsWidely availableLow–Moderate
RT-PCRDiagnostic confirmationPML::RARA transcript isoforms>95%4 hSample contamination, primer errors due to novel breakpointsWidely availableLow–Moderate
qRT-PCRMRD monitoringPML::RARA transcript isoforms>95%4 hSample contamination, primer errors due to novel breakpointsWidely availableLow–Moderate
RT-PCR + cDNA sequencingDiagnostic confirmationPML::RARA transcript isoforms, fusion breakpoints>95%2 daysSequencing errors, mis-priming, low-quality RNAModerateModerate
tCGH/cCGH/MpseqAdvanced genomic assessment for rare cases (at low resolution)PML::RARA transcript isoforms; additional non-diagnostic genomic aberrationsUnknown, very limited studies to date3 daysUndetectable balanced rearrangements and unmapped sequences, oversight of low-level mosaicism, inaccurate CNV callsLimitedModerate
OGMAdvanced genomic assessment for rare cases (at medium resolution)PML::RARA and non-PML::RARA transcript isoforms; fusion breakpoints; additional non-diagnostic genomic aberrationsUnknown, requires further validation for standard APL diagnostics3~5 daysPoor recovery of HMW DNA, complex rearrangement miscalls, undetectable polyploidy, unresolved centromeric/p-arm rearrangements, missed low-level mosaicismLimitedModerate–high
WGS/WESAdvanced genomic assessment for rare cases (at high resolution)PML::RARA and non-PML::RARA transcript isoforms; fusion breakpoints; additional non-diagnoatic genomic aberrationsUnknown, primarily used in research or complex cases rather than routine APL diagnosis3~5 daysSequencing artifacts, bioinformatics miscalls, over-sight of low-level mosaicism, variant validation challenges, interpretation challenges, conditional detection of structural rearrangementsLimitedHigh
Abbreviations: cCGH: chromosomal comparative genomic hybridization; tCGH: targeted Comparative Genomic Hybridization; MPseq: mate-pair sequencing; OGM: Optical genome mapping; HMW: high-molecular-weight; TAT: turn around time; WES: whole-exome sequencing; WGS: whole-genome sequencing.
Table 3. Stepwise approach to maximize diagnostic yield in cytogenetics- and FISH-negative APL.
Table 3. Stepwise approach to maximize diagnostic yield in cytogenetics- and FISH-negative APL.
TierMethodsClinical Relevance
First lineFISH (DCDF and BAP), Karypotying,
RT-PCR
High-yield, fast, easily accessible
AdvancedOGM, CMA, targeted sequencing,
long read sequencing
Complex cases
High-resolution/
research-oriented
WGS/WES, other omicsHigh-complexity cases,
with inconclusive results
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Delikkaya, B.N.; Eberle-Singh, J.; Morton, A.B.; Gong, J.Z.; Liu, J. Uncovering the PML::RARA Fusion in Cytogenetically Cryptic and FISH-Negative Acute Promyelocytic Leukemia—A Case Report and Comprehensive Literature Review. Genes 2025, 16, 1159. https://doi.org/10.3390/genes16101159

AMA Style

Delikkaya BN, Eberle-Singh J, Morton AB, Gong JZ, Liu J. Uncovering the PML::RARA Fusion in Cytogenetically Cryptic and FISH-Negative Acute Promyelocytic Leukemia—A Case Report and Comprehensive Literature Review. Genes. 2025; 16(10):1159. https://doi.org/10.3390/genes16101159

Chicago/Turabian Style

Delikkaya, Busra N., Jaime Eberle-Singh, Arianna B. Morton, Jerald Z. Gong, and Jinglan Liu. 2025. "Uncovering the PML::RARA Fusion in Cytogenetically Cryptic and FISH-Negative Acute Promyelocytic Leukemia—A Case Report and Comprehensive Literature Review" Genes 16, no. 10: 1159. https://doi.org/10.3390/genes16101159

APA Style

Delikkaya, B. N., Eberle-Singh, J., Morton, A. B., Gong, J. Z., & Liu, J. (2025). Uncovering the PML::RARA Fusion in Cytogenetically Cryptic and FISH-Negative Acute Promyelocytic Leukemia—A Case Report and Comprehensive Literature Review. Genes, 16(10), 1159. https://doi.org/10.3390/genes16101159

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop