3 resultados para Comparison between methods of analysis
Resumo:
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The main difficulty of PCR-based clonality studies for B-cell lymphoproliferative disorders (B-LPD) is discrimination between monoclonal and polyclonal PCR products, especially when there is a high background of polyclonal B cells in the tumor sample. Actually, PCR-based methods for clonality assessment require additional analysis of the PCR products in order to discern between monoclonal and polyclonal samples. Heteroduplex analysis represents an attractive approach since it is easy to perform and avoids the use of radioactive substrates or expensive equipment. DESIGN AND METHODS: We studied the sensitivity and specificity of heteroduplex PCR analysis for monoclonal detection in samples from 90 B-cell non Hodgkin's lymphoma (B-NHL) patients and in 28 individuals without neoplastic B-cell disorders (negative controls). Furthermore, in 42 B-NHL and in the same 28 negative controls, we compared heteroduplex analysis vs the classical PCR technique. We also compared ethidium bromide (EtBr) vs. silver nitrate (AgNO(3)) staining as well as agarose vs. polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (PAGE). RESULTS: Using two pair consensus primers sited at VH (FR3 and FR2) and at JH, 91% of B-NHL samples displayed monoclonal products after heteroduplex PCR analysis using PAGE and AgNO(3) staining. Moreover, no polyclonal sample showed a monoclonal PCR product. By contrast, false positive results were obtained when using agarose (5/28) and PAGE without heteroduplex analysis: 2/28 and 8/28 with EtBr and AgNO(3) staining, respectively. In addition, false negative results only appeared with EtBr staining: 13/42 in agarose, 4/42 in PAGE without heteroduplex analysis and 7/42 in PAGE after heteroduplex analysis. INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that AgNO(3) stained PAGE after heteroduplex analysis is the most suitable strategy for detecting monoclonal rearrangements in B-NHL samples because it does not produce false-positive results and the risk of false-negative results is very low.
Resumo:
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Minimal residual disease (MRD) studies are useful in multiple myeloma (MM). However, the definition of the best technique and clinical utility are still unresolved issues. The aim of this study was to analyze and compare the clinical utility of MRD studies in MM with two different techniques: allelic-specific oligonucleotide real-time quantitative PCR (ASO-RQ-PCR), and flow cytometry (FCM). DESIGN AND METHODS: Bone marrow samples from 32 MM patients who had achieved complete response after transplantation were evaluated by ASO-RQ-PCR, using TaqMan technology, and multiparametric FCM. RESULTS: ASO-RQ-PCR was only applicable in 75% of patients for a variety of technical reasons, while FCM was applicable in up to 90%. Therefore, simultaneous PCR/FCM analysis was possible in only 24 patients. The number of residual tumor cells identified by both techniques was very similar (mean=0.29%, range=0.001-1.61%, correlation coefficient=0.861). However, RQ-PCR was able to detect residual myelomatous cells in 17 patients while FCM only did so in 11; thus, 6 cases were FCM negative but PCR positive, all of them displaying a very low number of clonal cells (median=0.014%, range=0.001-0.11). Using an MRD threshold of 0.01% (10(-4)) two risk groups with significantly different progression-free survival could be identified by either PCR (34 vs. 15m, p=0.04) or FCM (27 vs. 10m, p=0.05). INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSIONS: Although MRD evaluation by ASO-RQ-PCR is slightly more sensitive and specific than FCM, it is applicable in a lower proportion of MM patients and is more time-consuming, while both techniques provide similar prognostic information.
Resumo:
PURPOSE: Conventional staging methods are inadequate to identify patients with stage II colon cancer (CC) who are at high risk of recurrence after surgery with curative intent. ColDx is a gene expression, microarray-based assay shown to be independently prognostic for recurrence-free interval (RFI) and overall survival in CC. The objective of this study was to further validate ColDx using formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded specimens collected as part of the Alliance phase III trial, C9581.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: C9581 evaluated edrecolomab versus observation in patients with stage II CC and reported no survival benefit. Under an initial case-cohort sampling design, a randomly selected subcohort (RS) comprised 514 patients from 901 eligible patients with available tissue. Forty-nine additional patients with recurrence events were included in the analysis. Final analysis comprised 393 patients: 360 RS (58 events) and 33 non-RS events. Risk status was determined for each patient by ColDx. The Self-Prentice method was used to test the association between the resulting ColDx risk score and RFI adjusting for standard prognostic variables.
RESULTS: Fifty-five percent of patients (216 of 393) were classified as high risk. After adjustment for prognostic variables that included mismatch repair (MMR) deficiency, ColDx high-risk patients exhibited significantly worse RFI (multivariable hazard ratio, 2.13; 95% CI, 1.3 to 3.5; P < .01). Age and MMR status were marginally significant. RFI at 5 years for patients classified as high risk was 82% (95% CI, 79% to 85%), compared with 91% (95% CI, 89% to 93%) for patients classified as low risk.
CONCLUSION: ColDx is associated with RFI in the C9581 subsample in the presence of other prognostic factors, including MMR deficiency. ColDx could be incorporated with the traditional clinical markers of risk to refine patient prognosis.