4.2 Article

Standardizing minimal residual disease by flow cytometry for precursor B lineage acute lymphoblastic leukemia in a developing country

期刊

CYTOMETRY PART B-CLINICAL CYTOMETRY
卷 82B, 期 4, 页码 252-258

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/cyto.b.21017

关键词

standardization of minimal residual disease; MRD by flow cytometry in India; flow cytometry of precursor B acute lymphoblastic leukemia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: In addition to standard risk criteria at diagnosis, minimal residual disease (MRD) following initiation of therapy is a well-recognized risk factor to predict relapse. Literature from developing countries addressing therapeutic or laboratory practices related to MRD, is largely lacking. In a first paper from India, we describe our experience in establishing a flow cytometry-based MRD assay for precursor B lineage ALL (BCP-ALL) with emphasis on the assay standardization and cost. Methods: Normal templates for B cell development were established in 10 control patients using CD45, CD11a, CD38, CD20, CD10, CD19, CD58, CD34, CD123, and CD22. BCP-ALL samples (n = 42) were characterized at diagnosis to identify a suitable marker for follow-up during mid (D+21) and end of induction (D+33). Both, multiparametric immunophenotyping and single marker detection of LAIP were used for data analysis. Results: In 95.2% of BCP-ALL at least two informative markers could be obtained when a minimum of four cocktail combinations were used. The combination CD20, CD10, CD45, and CD19 was the most useful (71.4%) followed by combinations containing CD38 (66.7%), CD22 (57.1%), CD11a (52.4%), and CD58 (33.3%). Using our approach, 60 and 47% of patients had detectable MRD at mid and end induction time points, respectively. Conclusion: We have described a relatively cost effective MRD panel which is applicable to over 90% of patients. We hope that this data would encourage more centers in India and other resource constrained health delivery systems to develop MRD assays. (c) 2012 International Clinical Cytometry Society

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