Cargando…

Comparison of Multiple Clinical Testing Modalities for Assessment of NPM1-Mutant AML

BACKGROUND: NPM1 mutation status can influence prognosis and management in AML. Accordingly, clinical testing (i.e., RT-PCR, NGS and IHC) for mutant NPM1 is increasing in order to detect residual disease in AML, alongside flow cytometry (FC). However, the relationship of the results from RT-PCR to t...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lopez, Amanda, Patel, Sanjay, Geyer, Julia T., Racchumi, Joelle, Chadburn, Amy, Simonson, Paul, Ouseph, Madhu M., Inghirami, Giorgio, Mencia-Trinchant, Nuria, Guzman, Monica L., Gomez-Arteaga, Alexandra, Lee, Sangmin, Desai, Pinkal, Ritchie, Ellen K., Roboz, Gail J., Tam, Wayne, Kluk, Michael J.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8435844/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34527579
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2021.701318
_version_ 1783751884910100480
author Lopez, Amanda
Patel, Sanjay
Geyer, Julia T.
Racchumi, Joelle
Chadburn, Amy
Simonson, Paul
Ouseph, Madhu M.
Inghirami, Giorgio
Mencia-Trinchant, Nuria
Guzman, Monica L.
Gomez-Arteaga, Alexandra
Lee, Sangmin
Desai, Pinkal
Ritchie, Ellen K.
Roboz, Gail J.
Tam, Wayne
Kluk, Michael J.
author_facet Lopez, Amanda
Patel, Sanjay
Geyer, Julia T.
Racchumi, Joelle
Chadburn, Amy
Simonson, Paul
Ouseph, Madhu M.
Inghirami, Giorgio
Mencia-Trinchant, Nuria
Guzman, Monica L.
Gomez-Arteaga, Alexandra
Lee, Sangmin
Desai, Pinkal
Ritchie, Ellen K.
Roboz, Gail J.
Tam, Wayne
Kluk, Michael J.
author_sort Lopez, Amanda
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: NPM1 mutation status can influence prognosis and management in AML. Accordingly, clinical testing (i.e., RT-PCR, NGS and IHC) for mutant NPM1 is increasing in order to detect residual disease in AML, alongside flow cytometry (FC). However, the relationship of the results from RT-PCR to traditional NGS, IHC and FC is not widely known among many practitioners. Herein, we aim to: i) describe the performance of RT-PCR compared to traditional NGS and IHC for the detection of mutant NPM1 in clinical practice, and also compare it to FC, and ii) provide our observations regarding the advantages and disadvantages of each approach in order to inform future clinical testing algorithms. METHODS: Peripheral blood and bone marrow samples collected for clinical testing at variable time points during patient management were tested by quantitative, real-time, RT-PCR and results were compared to findings from a Myeloid NGS panel, mutant NPM1 IHC and FC. RESULTS: RT-PCR showed superior sensitivity compared to NGS, IHC and FC with the main challenge of NGS, IHC and FC being the ability to identify a low disease burden (<0.5% NCN by RT-PCR). Nevertheless, the positive predictive value of NGS, IHC and FC were each ≥ 80% indicating that positive results by those assays are typically associated with RT-PCR positivity. IHC, unlike bulk methods (RT-PCR, NGS and FC), is able provide information regarding cellular/architectural context of disease in biopsies. FC did not identify any NPM1-mutated residual disease not already detected by RT-PCR, NGS or IHC. CONCLUSION: Overall, our findings demonstrate that RT-PCR shows superior sensitivity compared to a traditional Myeloid NGS, suggesting the need for “deep-sequencing” NGS panels for NGS-based monitoring of residual disease in NPM1-mutant AML. IHC provides complementary cytomorphologic information to RT-PCR. Lastly, FC may not be necessary in the setting of post-therapy follow up for NPM1-mutated AML. Together, these findings can help inform future clinical testing algorithms.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8435844
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-84358442021-09-14 Comparison of Multiple Clinical Testing Modalities for Assessment of NPM1-Mutant AML Lopez, Amanda Patel, Sanjay Geyer, Julia T. Racchumi, Joelle Chadburn, Amy Simonson, Paul Ouseph, Madhu M. Inghirami, Giorgio Mencia-Trinchant, Nuria Guzman, Monica L. Gomez-Arteaga, Alexandra Lee, Sangmin Desai, Pinkal Ritchie, Ellen K. Roboz, Gail J. Tam, Wayne Kluk, Michael J. Front Oncol Oncology BACKGROUND: NPM1 mutation status can influence prognosis and management in AML. Accordingly, clinical testing (i.e., RT-PCR, NGS and IHC) for mutant NPM1 is increasing in order to detect residual disease in AML, alongside flow cytometry (FC). However, the relationship of the results from RT-PCR to traditional NGS, IHC and FC is not widely known among many practitioners. Herein, we aim to: i) describe the performance of RT-PCR compared to traditional NGS and IHC for the detection of mutant NPM1 in clinical practice, and also compare it to FC, and ii) provide our observations regarding the advantages and disadvantages of each approach in order to inform future clinical testing algorithms. METHODS: Peripheral blood and bone marrow samples collected for clinical testing at variable time points during patient management were tested by quantitative, real-time, RT-PCR and results were compared to findings from a Myeloid NGS panel, mutant NPM1 IHC and FC. RESULTS: RT-PCR showed superior sensitivity compared to NGS, IHC and FC with the main challenge of NGS, IHC and FC being the ability to identify a low disease burden (<0.5% NCN by RT-PCR). Nevertheless, the positive predictive value of NGS, IHC and FC were each ≥ 80% indicating that positive results by those assays are typically associated with RT-PCR positivity. IHC, unlike bulk methods (RT-PCR, NGS and FC), is able provide information regarding cellular/architectural context of disease in biopsies. FC did not identify any NPM1-mutated residual disease not already detected by RT-PCR, NGS or IHC. CONCLUSION: Overall, our findings demonstrate that RT-PCR shows superior sensitivity compared to a traditional Myeloid NGS, suggesting the need for “deep-sequencing” NGS panels for NGS-based monitoring of residual disease in NPM1-mutant AML. IHC provides complementary cytomorphologic information to RT-PCR. Lastly, FC may not be necessary in the setting of post-therapy follow up for NPM1-mutated AML. Together, these findings can help inform future clinical testing algorithms. Frontiers Media S.A. 2021-08-30 /pmc/articles/PMC8435844/ /pubmed/34527579 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2021.701318 Text en Copyright © 2021 Lopez, Patel, Geyer, Racchumi, Chadburn, Simonson, Ouseph, Inghirami, Mencia-Trinchant, Guzman, Gomez-Arteaga, Lee, Desai, Ritchie, Roboz, Tam and Kluk https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Oncology
Lopez, Amanda
Patel, Sanjay
Geyer, Julia T.
Racchumi, Joelle
Chadburn, Amy
Simonson, Paul
Ouseph, Madhu M.
Inghirami, Giorgio
Mencia-Trinchant, Nuria
Guzman, Monica L.
Gomez-Arteaga, Alexandra
Lee, Sangmin
Desai, Pinkal
Ritchie, Ellen K.
Roboz, Gail J.
Tam, Wayne
Kluk, Michael J.
Comparison of Multiple Clinical Testing Modalities for Assessment of NPM1-Mutant AML
title Comparison of Multiple Clinical Testing Modalities for Assessment of NPM1-Mutant AML
title_full Comparison of Multiple Clinical Testing Modalities for Assessment of NPM1-Mutant AML
title_fullStr Comparison of Multiple Clinical Testing Modalities for Assessment of NPM1-Mutant AML
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of Multiple Clinical Testing Modalities for Assessment of NPM1-Mutant AML
title_short Comparison of Multiple Clinical Testing Modalities for Assessment of NPM1-Mutant AML
title_sort comparison of multiple clinical testing modalities for assessment of npm1-mutant aml
topic Oncology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8435844/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34527579
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2021.701318
work_keys_str_mv AT lopezamanda comparisonofmultipleclinicaltestingmodalitiesforassessmentofnpm1mutantaml
AT patelsanjay comparisonofmultipleclinicaltestingmodalitiesforassessmentofnpm1mutantaml
AT geyerjuliat comparisonofmultipleclinicaltestingmodalitiesforassessmentofnpm1mutantaml
AT racchumijoelle comparisonofmultipleclinicaltestingmodalitiesforassessmentofnpm1mutantaml
AT chadburnamy comparisonofmultipleclinicaltestingmodalitiesforassessmentofnpm1mutantaml
AT simonsonpaul comparisonofmultipleclinicaltestingmodalitiesforassessmentofnpm1mutantaml
AT ousephmadhum comparisonofmultipleclinicaltestingmodalitiesforassessmentofnpm1mutantaml
AT inghiramigiorgio comparisonofmultipleclinicaltestingmodalitiesforassessmentofnpm1mutantaml
AT menciatrinchantnuria comparisonofmultipleclinicaltestingmodalitiesforassessmentofnpm1mutantaml
AT guzmanmonical comparisonofmultipleclinicaltestingmodalitiesforassessmentofnpm1mutantaml
AT gomezarteagaalexandra comparisonofmultipleclinicaltestingmodalitiesforassessmentofnpm1mutantaml
AT leesangmin comparisonofmultipleclinicaltestingmodalitiesforassessmentofnpm1mutantaml
AT desaipinkal comparisonofmultipleclinicaltestingmodalitiesforassessmentofnpm1mutantaml
AT ritchieellenk comparisonofmultipleclinicaltestingmodalitiesforassessmentofnpm1mutantaml
AT robozgailj comparisonofmultipleclinicaltestingmodalitiesforassessmentofnpm1mutantaml
AT tamwayne comparisonofmultipleclinicaltestingmodalitiesforassessmentofnpm1mutantaml
AT klukmichaelj comparisonofmultipleclinicaltestingmodalitiesforassessmentofnpm1mutantaml