2 resultados para Quantitative Interpretation


Relevância:

30.00% 30.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

PCR-based immunoglobulin (Ig)/T-cell receptor (TCR) clonality testing in suspected lymphoproliferations has largely been standardized and has consequently become technically feasible in a routine diagnostic setting. Standardization of the pre-analytical and post-analytical phases is now essential to prevent misinterpretation and incorrect conclusions derived from clonality data. As clonality testing is not a quantitative assay, but rather concerns recognition of molecular patterns, guidelines for reliable interpretation and reporting are mandatory. Here, the EuroClonality (BIOMED-2) consortium summarizes important pre- and post-analytical aspects of clonality testing, provides guidelines for interpretation of clonality testing results, and presents a uniform way to report the results of the Ig/TCR assays. Starting from an immunobiological concept, two levels to report Ig/TCR profiles are discerned: the technical description of individual (multiplex) PCR reactions and the overall molecular conclusion for B and T cells. Collectively, the EuroClonality (BIOMED-2) guidelines and consensus reporting system should help to improve the general performance level of clonality assessment and interpretation, which will directly impact on routine clinical management (standardized best-practice) in patients with suspected lymphoproliferations.

Relevância:

30.00% 30.00%

Publicador:

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.