4.0 Article

Impact of Specimen Heterogeneity on Biomarkers in Repository Samples from Patients with Acute Myeloid Leukemia: A SWOG Report

期刊

BIOPRESERVATION AND BIOBANKING
卷 16, 期 1, 页码 42-52

出版社

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/bio.2017.0079

关键词

AML; biomarkers; biorepository; cryopreservation; flow cytometry; immunophenotype

资金

  1. National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health [CA160872, CA114563, CA180861, CA180819, CA180828, CA180888]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: Current prognostic models for acute myeloid leukemia (AML) are inconsistent at predicting clinical outcomes for individual patients. Variability in the quality of specimens utilized for biomarker discovery and validation may contribute to this prognostic inconsistency. Methods: We evaluated the impact of sample heterogeneity on prognostic biomarkers and methods to mitigate any adverse effects of this heterogeneity in 240 cryopreserved bone marrow and peripheral blood specimens from AML patients enrolled on SWOG (Southwest Oncology Group) trials. Results: Cryopreserved samples displayed a broad range in viability (37% with viabilities 60%) and nonleukemic cell contamination (13% with lymphocyte percentages >20%). Specimen viability was impacted by transport time, AML immunophenotype, and, potentially, patients' age. The viability and cellular heterogeneity in unsorted samples significantly altered biomarker results. Enriching for viable AML blasts improved the RNA quality from specimens with poor viability and refined results for both DNA and RNA biomarkers. For example, FLT3-ITD allelic ratio, which is currently utilized to risk-stratify AML patients, was on average 1.49-fold higher in the viable AML blasts than in the unsorted specimens. Conclusion: To our knowledge, this is the first study to provide evidence that using cryopreserved specimens can introduce uncontrollable variables that may impact biomarker results and enrichment for viable AML blasts may mitigate this impact.

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

4.0
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