4.2 Article

Ficoll-hypaque separation vs whole blood lysis: Comparison of efficiency and impact on minimal residual disease analysis

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/ijlh.12766

关键词

cell recovering; Ficoll; minimal residual disease; red blood cell lysis

资金

  1. Progetto di Rilevante Interesse Nazionale PRIN
  2. Ministero Italiano dell'Universita e della Ricerca (MIUR) [7.07.02.60 AE01]
  3. Progetto di Ricerca Sanitaria Finalizzata [RF-20091469205, RF-2010-2307262]
  4. Fondazione Neoplasie Del Sangue
  5. Fondazione CRT [2015.1044, 2016.0677]
  6. Associazione DaRosa

向作者/读者索取更多资源

IntroductionThe high-throughput era remarkably changed molecular laboratory practice. Actually, the increasing number of processed samples requires to reduce the risk of operator biases, by automating or simplifying as much as possible both the analytical and the pre-analytical phases. Minimal residual disease (MRD) studies in hematology often require a simultaneous processing of many bone marrow and peripheral blood samples from patients enrolled in prospective, multicenter, clinical trials, monitored at several planned time points. MethodsIn this study, we demonstrate that red blood cell lysis (RBL) pre-analytical procedure can replace the time-consuming Ficoll stratification as cell recovering step. Here, we show a MRD comparison study using both total white blood cells and mononuclear cells recovered by the 2 procedures from 46 follicular lymphoma (FL), 15 multiple myeloma (MM), and 11 mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) patients enrolled in prospective clinical trials. ResultsThe experiments were performed in the 4 laboratories of the Fondazione Italiana Linfomi (FIL) MRD Network and showed superimposable results, in terms of good correlation (R=0.87) of the MRD data obtained by recovering blood cells by the 2 approaches. ConclusionBased on these results, the FIL MRD Network suggests to optimize the pre-analytical phases introducing RBL approach for cell recovery in the clinical trials including MRD analysis.

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

4.2
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