4.6 Article

Molecular diagnosis of T-cell lymphoma: a correlative study of PCR-based T-cell clonality assessment and targeted NGS

Journal

BLOOD ADVANCES
Volume 5, Issue 22, Pages 4590-4593

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1182/bloodadvances.2021005249.

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Comparison of PCR and t-NGS techniques in T-cell lymphoma diagnosis showed that t-NGS was more specific in detecting mutations while PCR remained complementary in detecting cases missed by t-NGS. Sensitivity was similar between the two techniques.
Immunomorphological diagnosis of T-cell lymphoma (TCL) may be challenging, especially on needle biopsies. Multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assays to assess T-cell receptor (TCR) gene rearrangements are now widely used to detect T-cell clones and provide diagnostic support. However, PCR assays detect only 80% of TCL, and clonal lymphocyte populations may also appear in nonneoplastic conditions. More recently, targeted next generation sequencing (t-NGS) technologies have been deployed to improve lymphoma classification. To the best of our knowledge, the comparison of these techniques' performance in TCL diagnosis has not been reported yet. In this study, 82 TCL samples and 25 nonneoplastic T-cell infiltrates were divided into 2 cohorts (test and validation) and analyzed with both multiplex PCR and t-NGS to investigate TCR gene rearrangements and somatic mutations, respectively. The detection of mutations appeared to be more specific (100.0%) than T-cell clonality assessment (41.7%-45.5%), whereas no differences were observed in terms of sensitivity (95.1%-97.4%). Furthermore, t-NGS provided a reliable basis for TCL diagnosis in samples with partially degraded DNA that was impossible to assess with PCR. Finally, although multiplex PCR assays appeared to be less specific than t-NGS, both techniques remain complementary, as PCR recovered some t-NGS negative cases.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available