European journal of haematology · 2024
Droplet digital PCR for sensitive relapse detection in acute myeloid leukaemia patients transplanted by reduced intensity conditioning.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Gronlund Jonas Kassow, Veigaard Christopher, Juhl-Christensen Caroline, Skou Anne-Sofie, Melsvik Dorte, Ommen Hans Beier
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Follow-up after allogeneic transplantation in acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) is guided by measurable residual disease (MRD) testing. Quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) is the preferred MRD platform but unfortunately, 40%-60% of AML patients have no high-quality qPCR target. This study aimed to improve MRD testing by utilising droplet digital PCR (ddPCR). ddPCR offers patient-specific monitoring but concerns of tracking clonal haematopoiesis rather than malignant cells prompt further validation.
METHODS: Retrospectively, we performed MRD testing on blood and bone marrow samples from AML patients transplanted by reduced-intensity conditioning.
RESULTS: The applicability of ddPCR was 39/42 (92.9%). Forty-five ddPCR assays were validated with a 0.0089% median sensitivity. qPCR targeting NPM1 mutation detected relapse 46 days before ddPCR (p = .03). ddPCR detected relapse 34.5 days before qPCR targeting WT1 overexpression (p = .03). In non-relapsing patients, zero false positive ddPCR MRD relapses were observed even when monitoring targets associated with clonal haematopoiesis such as DNMT3A, TET2, and ASXL1 mutations.
CONCLUSION: These results confirm that qPCR targeting NPM1 mutations or fusion transcripts are superior in MRD testing. In the absence of such targets, ddPCR is a promising alternative demonstrating (a) high applicability, (b) high sensitivity, and (c) zero false positive MRD relapses in non-relapsing patients.
METHODS: Retrospectively, we performed MRD testing on blood and bone marrow samples from AML patients transplanted by reduced-intensity conditioning.
RESULTS: The applicability of ddPCR was 39/42 (92.9%). Forty-five ddPCR assays were validated with a 0.0089% median sensitivity. qPCR targeting NPM1 mutation detected relapse 46 days before ddPCR (p = .03). ddPCR detected relapse 34.5 days before qPCR targeting WT1 overexpression (p = .03). In non-relapsing patients, zero false positive ddPCR MRD relapses were observed even when monitoring targets associated with clonal haematopoiesis such as DNMT3A, TET2, and ASXL1 mutations.
CONCLUSION: These results confirm that qPCR targeting NPM1 mutations or fusion transcripts are superior in MRD testing. In the absence of such targets, ddPCR is a promising alternative demonstrating (a) high applicability, (b) high sensitivity, and (c) zero false positive MRD relapses in non-relapsing patients.