4.6 Article

Concordance of peripheral blood and bone marrow measurable residual disease in adult acute lymphoblastic leukemia

期刊

BLOOD ADVANCES
卷 5, 期 16, 页码 3147-3151

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1182/bloodadvances.2021004234

关键词

-

资金

  1. Adaptive Biotechnologies

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Monitoring measurable residual disease (MRD) in peripheral blood (PB) shows a strong correlation with bone marrow (BM) MRD in adult ALL patients undergoing cellular therapies. Detection of MRD in PB was highly sensitive and specific, with early detection associated with relapse following HCT and CAR T therapies. This suggests that PB MRD monitoring may be a reliable alternative to frequent BM evaluations in this clinical setting.
Monitoring of measurable residual disease (MRD) is essential to the management of acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) and is typically performed through repeated bone marrow (BM) assessments. Using a next-generation sequencing (NGS) MRD platform, we performed a prospective observational study evaluating the correlation between peripheral blood (PB) and BM MRD in adults with ALL receiving cellular therapies (hematopoietic cell transplantation [HCT] and chimeric antigen receptor T-cell [CAR-T] therapies). Among the study cohort (N = 69 patients; 126 paired PB/BM samples), we found strong correlation between PB and BM MRD (r = 0.87; P < .001), with a sensitivity and specificity of MRD detection in the PB of 87% and 90%, respectively, relative to MRD in the BM. MRD became detectable in the PB in 100% of patients who subsequently relapsed following HCT, with median time from MRD+ to clinical relapse of 90 days, and in 85% of patients who relapsed following CAR T, with median time from MRD+ to clinical relapse of 60 days. In adult patients with ALL undergoing cellular therapies, we demonstrate strong concordance between NGS-based MRD detected in the PB and BM. Monitoring of ALL MRD in the PB appears to be an adequate alternative to frequent invasive BM evaluations in this clinical setting.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据