Routine Evaluation of Minimal Residual Disease in Myeloma Using Next-Generation Sequencing Clonality Testing: Feasibility, Challenges, and Direct Comparison with High-Sensitivity Flow Cytometry.
Journal
The Journal of molecular diagnostics : JMD
ISSN: 1943-7811
Titre abrégé: J Mol Diagn
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 100893612
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 2021
02 2021
Historique:
received:
06
05
2020
revised:
13
09
2020
accepted:
22
10
2020
pubmed:
21
11
2020
medline:
6
11
2021
entrez:
20
11
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The 2016 International Myeloma Working Group consensus recommendations emphasize high-sensitivity methods for minimal residual disease (MRD) detection, treatment response assessment, and prognostication. Next-generation sequencing (NGS) of IGH gene rearrangements is highly specific and sensitive, but its description in routine clinical practice and performance comparison with high-sensitivity flow cytometry (hsFC) remain limited. In this large, single-institution study including 438 samples from 251 patients, the use of NGS targeting the IGH and IGK genes for clonal characterization and monitoring, with comparison to hsFC, is described. The index clone characterization success rate was 93.6% (235/251), which depended on plasma cell (PC) cellularity, reaching 98% when PC ≥10% and below 80% when PC <5%. A total of 85% of cases were successfully characterized using leader and FR1 primer sets, and most clones showed high somatic hypermutation rates (median, 8.1%). Among monitoring samples from 124 patients, 78.6% (147/187) had detectable disease by NGS. Concordance with hsFC was 92.9% (170/183). Discordant cases encompassed 8 of 124 hsFC MRD+/NGS MRD- patients (6.5%) and 4 of 124 hsFC MRD-/NGS MRD+ patients (3.2%), all with low-level disease near detection limits for both assays. Among concordant hsFC MRD-/NGS MRD- cases, only 5 of 24 patients (20.8%) showed subsequent overt relapse at 3-year follow-up. HsFC and NGS showed similar operational sensitivity, and the choice of test may depend on practical, rather than test performance, considerations.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33217553
pii: S1525-1578(20)30538-9
doi: 10.1016/j.jmoldx.2020.10.015
pmc: PMC7874334
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
181-199Subventions
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : P30 CA008748
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 Association for Molecular Pathology and American Society for Investigative Pathology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Références
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011 Dec 27;108(52):21194-9
pubmed: 22160699
Leukemia. 2012 Oct;26(10):2159-71
pubmed: 22918122
Leukemia. 2016 Apr;30(4):929-36
pubmed: 26639181
Leukemia. 2014 Jun;28(6):1299-307
pubmed: 24342950
Blood. 2012 Jan 19;119(3):687-91
pubmed: 22128143
Leukemia. 2006 Sep;20(9):1467-73
pubmed: 16855634
J Mol Diagn. 2016 Jul;18(4):494-506
pubmed: 27183494
Blood. 2015 May 14;125(20):3059-68
pubmed: 25838346
J Mol Diagn. 2019 Mar;21(2):330-342
pubmed: 30590126
Blood. 2012 Nov 22;120(22):4407-17
pubmed: 22932801
Blood Adv. 2017 May 03;1(12):728-732
pubmed: 29296716
Leukemia. 2019 Sep;33(9):2241-2253
pubmed: 31243313
Br J Haematol. 1998 Sep;102(5):1115-23
pubmed: 9753033
Blood. 2014 May 15;123(20):3073-9
pubmed: 24646471
Ann Oncol. 2017 Oct 1;28(10):2503-2510
pubmed: 28945825
Leukemia. 2013 Aug;27(8):1659-65
pubmed: 23419792
Leukemia. 2017 Oct;31(10):2094-2103
pubmed: 28104919
Leukemia. 2003 Dec;17(12):2257-317
pubmed: 14671650
JAMA Oncol. 2015 Sep;1(6):746-54
pubmed: 26181891
Blood. 2012 Dec 20;120(26):5173-80
pubmed: 23074282
Lancet Oncol. 2016 Aug;17(8):e328-e346
pubmed: 27511158
Oncotarget. 2015 May 30;6(15):13229-40
pubmed: 25929340
Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2014 Sep;20(9):1307-13
pubmed: 24769317
Blood. 2018 Dec 6;132(23):2456-2464
pubmed: 30249784
Leukemia. 2003 Jul;17(7):1398-403
pubmed: 12835730
Am J Clin Pathol. 2016 Jul;146(1):41-9
pubmed: 27402608