3.8 Article

Monitoring of minimal residual disease in adult acute myeloid leukemia using peripheral blood as an alternative source to bone marrow

期刊

HAEMATOLOGICA-THE HEMATOLOGY JOURNAL
卷 92, 期 5, 页码 605-611

出版社

FERRATA STORTI FOUNDATION
DOI: 10.3324/haematol.10432

关键词

AML; MRD; multiparametric flow-cytometry; leukemia associated phenotype; peripheral blood

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and Objectives To date, bone marrow (BM) is the most common source of cells to use in order to assess minimal residual disease (MRD) in acute myeloid leukemia (AML). In the present study, we investigated whether peripheral blood (PB) could be an alternative source of cells for monitoring MRD in AML. Design and Methods Fifty patients with AML were monitored for MRD after the achievement of complete remission. Using multiparametric flow cytometry we compared the levels of MRD in 50 and 48 pairs of BM and PB after induction and consolidation, respectively. Results After induction and consolidation therapy, the findings in BM and PB were significantly concordant (r=0.86 and 0.82, respectively, p < 0.001 for both comparisons). The cut-off value of residual leukemic cells in PB which correlated with outcome was 1.5x10(-4). Thirty-three of 43 (77%) patients with > 1.5x10(-4) residual leukemic cells in PB after induction had a relapse, whereas the seven patients with lower levels did not (p=0.0002). After consolidation, 38 patients had a level of MRD > 1.5x10-4 and 31 (82%) had a relapse; nine out of the remaining ten patients, whose levels of MRD were below 1.5x10(-4), are still relapse-free (p=0.00006). In multivariate analysis, PB MRD status at the end of consolidation was found to have a significant effect on relapse-free survival (p=0.036). Interpretation and Conclusions These preliminary results indicate that: (i) PB evaluation can integrate BM assessment for MRD detection in patients with AML; (ii) PB MRD status at the end of consolidation therapy may provide useful prognostic information.

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

3.8
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