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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |