Minimal residual disease testing of acute leukemia by flow cytometry immunophenotyping: A retrospective comparison of detection rates with flow cytometry DNA ploidy or FISH-based methods

David Zwick, Linda Cooley, Maxine Hetherington

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

8 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The detection and quantification of minimal residual leukemia (MRD) has importance for monitoring continued disease response and detection of early relapse. We retrospectively compared MRD detection rates and percentages of residual leukemia by flow cytometry immunophenotyping (FCIP) with results obtained by either flow cytometry DNA (FCDNA) ploidy (n = 14) and/or fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) (n = 33) testing for cases with 1.5% or less residual leukemia. A total of 42 paired results were obtained from 20 pediatric patients, including 16 with B lineage acute lymphocytic leukemia and 4 patients with acute myeloid leukemia during the course of induction and/or relapse. Eighty-one percent of the results were concordant (20 negative and 14 positive). There was reasonable correlation coefficients for quantity of residual disease by FCIP and FCDNA ploidy, and poor correlation coefficients for levels of residual disease between FCIP- and FISH-based results. FCIP MRD sensitivity and specificity was 78% and 83%, respectively. Factors contributing to the 19% discordant rate include low sensitivity of the DNA-based methods as applied and antigenic modulation of immunophenotype during the course of treatment. There is a reasonable agreement between the FCIP and FCDNA or FISH methods for detecting and quantifying MRD. However, the methods are viewed as complementary with their own inherent limitations.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)75-81
Number of pages7
JournalLaboratory Hematology
Volume12
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 19 2006

Fingerprint

Immunophenotyping
Flow cytometry
Ploidies
Residual Neoplasm
Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization
Flow Cytometry
Leukemia
DNA
Testing
Antigenic Modulation
Recurrence
Pediatrics
Precursor Cell Lymphoblastic Leukemia-Lymphoma
Acute Myeloid Leukemia
Early Diagnosis
Modulation
Sensitivity and Specificity
Monitoring

Keywords

  • Children
  • DNA ploidy
  • Flourescent in situ hybridization
  • Genotype
  • Minimal residual acute leukemia detection
  • Phenotype
  • Validation

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Hematology

Cite this

@article{70954cf9e6d34256aba85bb6a40e4999,
title = "Minimal residual disease testing of acute leukemia by flow cytometry immunophenotyping: A retrospective comparison of detection rates with flow cytometry DNA ploidy or FISH-based methods",
abstract = "The detection and quantification of minimal residual leukemia (MRD) has importance for monitoring continued disease response and detection of early relapse. We retrospectively compared MRD detection rates and percentages of residual leukemia by flow cytometry immunophenotyping (FCIP) with results obtained by either flow cytometry DNA (FCDNA) ploidy (n = 14) and/or fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) (n = 33) testing for cases with 1.5{\%} or less residual leukemia. A total of 42 paired results were obtained from 20 pediatric patients, including 16 with B lineage acute lymphocytic leukemia and 4 patients with acute myeloid leukemia during the course of induction and/or relapse. Eighty-one percent of the results were concordant (20 negative and 14 positive). There was reasonable correlation coefficients for quantity of residual disease by FCIP and FCDNA ploidy, and poor correlation coefficients for levels of residual disease between FCIP- and FISH-based results. FCIP MRD sensitivity and specificity was 78{\%} and 83{\%}, respectively. Factors contributing to the 19{\%} discordant rate include low sensitivity of the DNA-based methods as applied and antigenic modulation of immunophenotype during the course of treatment. There is a reasonable agreement between the FCIP and FCDNA or FISH methods for detecting and quantifying MRD. However, the methods are viewed as complementary with their own inherent limitations.",
keywords = "Children, DNA ploidy, Flourescent in situ hybridization, Genotype, Minimal residual acute leukemia detection, Phenotype, Validation",
author = "David Zwick and Linda Cooley and Maxine Hetherington",
year = "2006",
month = "7",
day = "19",
doi = "10.1532/LH96.05040",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "12",
pages = "75--81",
journal = "Laboratory Hematology",
issn = "1080-2924",
publisher = "Carden Jennings Publishing Co. Ltd",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Minimal residual disease testing of acute leukemia by flow cytometry immunophenotyping

T2 - A retrospective comparison of detection rates with flow cytometry DNA ploidy or FISH-based methods

AU - Zwick, David

AU - Cooley, Linda

AU - Hetherington, Maxine

PY - 2006/7/19

Y1 - 2006/7/19

N2 - The detection and quantification of minimal residual leukemia (MRD) has importance for monitoring continued disease response and detection of early relapse. We retrospectively compared MRD detection rates and percentages of residual leukemia by flow cytometry immunophenotyping (FCIP) with results obtained by either flow cytometry DNA (FCDNA) ploidy (n = 14) and/or fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) (n = 33) testing for cases with 1.5% or less residual leukemia. A total of 42 paired results were obtained from 20 pediatric patients, including 16 with B lineage acute lymphocytic leukemia and 4 patients with acute myeloid leukemia during the course of induction and/or relapse. Eighty-one percent of the results were concordant (20 negative and 14 positive). There was reasonable correlation coefficients for quantity of residual disease by FCIP and FCDNA ploidy, and poor correlation coefficients for levels of residual disease between FCIP- and FISH-based results. FCIP MRD sensitivity and specificity was 78% and 83%, respectively. Factors contributing to the 19% discordant rate include low sensitivity of the DNA-based methods as applied and antigenic modulation of immunophenotype during the course of treatment. There is a reasonable agreement between the FCIP and FCDNA or FISH methods for detecting and quantifying MRD. However, the methods are viewed as complementary with their own inherent limitations.

AB - The detection and quantification of minimal residual leukemia (MRD) has importance for monitoring continued disease response and detection of early relapse. We retrospectively compared MRD detection rates and percentages of residual leukemia by flow cytometry immunophenotyping (FCIP) with results obtained by either flow cytometry DNA (FCDNA) ploidy (n = 14) and/or fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) (n = 33) testing for cases with 1.5% or less residual leukemia. A total of 42 paired results were obtained from 20 pediatric patients, including 16 with B lineage acute lymphocytic leukemia and 4 patients with acute myeloid leukemia during the course of induction and/or relapse. Eighty-one percent of the results were concordant (20 negative and 14 positive). There was reasonable correlation coefficients for quantity of residual disease by FCIP and FCDNA ploidy, and poor correlation coefficients for levels of residual disease between FCIP- and FISH-based results. FCIP MRD sensitivity and specificity was 78% and 83%, respectively. Factors contributing to the 19% discordant rate include low sensitivity of the DNA-based methods as applied and antigenic modulation of immunophenotype during the course of treatment. There is a reasonable agreement between the FCIP and FCDNA or FISH methods for detecting and quantifying MRD. However, the methods are viewed as complementary with their own inherent limitations.

KW - Children

KW - DNA ploidy

KW - Flourescent in situ hybridization

KW - Genotype

KW - Minimal residual acute leukemia detection

KW - Phenotype

KW - Validation

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33745883521&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33745883521&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1532/LH96.05040

DO - 10.1532/LH96.05040

M3 - Article

C2 - 16751134

AN - SCOPUS:33745883521

VL - 12

SP - 75

EP - 81

JO - Laboratory Hematology

JF - Laboratory Hematology

SN - 1080-2924

IS - 2

ER -