4.7 Article

Droplet digital PCR for the detection of second-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitor-resistant BCR::ABL1 kinase domain mutations in chronic myeloid leukemia

期刊

LEUKEMIA
卷 36, 期 9, 页码 2250-2260

出版社

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1038/s41375-022-01660-8

关键词

-

资金

  1. Novartis through the European Treatment and Outcome Study (EUTOS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study evaluated a multiplex strategy based on ddPCR for the detection and quantitation of mutations conferring resistance to second-generation TKIs. The results showed that ddPCR can accurately and rapidly screen for 2GTKI-resistant mutations.
One of the indications for BCR::ABL1 mutation testing in chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) is when tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy (TKI) needs to be changed for unsatisfactory response. In this study, we evaluated a droplet digital PCR (ddPCR)-based multiplex strategy for the detection and quantitation of transcripts harbouring mutations conferring resistance to second-generation TKIs (2GTKIs). Parallel quantitation of e13a2, e14a2 and e1a2 BCR::ABL1 fusion transcripts enables to express results as percentage of mutation positive- over total BCR::ABL1 transcripts. We determined the limit of blank in 60 mutation-negative samples. Accuracy was demonstrated by further analysis of 48 samples already studied by next generation sequencing (NGS). Mutations could be called down to 0.5% and across 3-logs of BCR::ABL1 levels. Retrospective review of BCR::ABL1 NGS results in 513 consecutive CML patients with non-optimal response to first- or second-line TKI therapy suggested that a ddPCR-based approach targeted against 2GTKI-resistant mutations would score samples as mutation-negative in 22% of patients with warning response to imatinib but only in 6% of patients with warning response to 2GTKIs. We conclude ddPCR represents an attractive method for easy, accurate and rapid screening for 2GTKI-resistant mutations impacting on TKI selection, although ddPCR cannot identify compound mutations.

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

4.7
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