scholarly journals Participation in the College of American Pathologists Laboratory Accreditation Program Decreases Variability in B-Lymphoblastic Leukemia and Plasma Cell Myeloma Flow Cytometric Minimal Residual Disease Testing: A Follow-up Survey

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Meghan M. Hupp ◽  
Christine Bashleben ◽  
Jolene L. Cardinali ◽  
David M. Dorfman ◽  
William Karlon ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Flow Cytometry ◽  
Minimal Residual Disease ◽  
Proficiency Testing ◽  
Plasma Cell ◽  
Residual Disease ◽  
Lymphoblastic Leukemia ◽  
Laboratory Accreditation ◽  
Plasma Cell Myeloma ◽  
Accreditation Program ◽  
Minimal Residual

Context.— Minimal residual disease (MRD) testing by flow cytometry is ubiquitous in hematolymphoid neoplasm monitoring, especially B-lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL), for which it provides predictive information and guides management. Major heterogeneity was identified in 2014. Subsequently, new Flow Cytometry Checklist items required documentation of the sensitivity determination method and required lower level of detection (LLOD) inclusion in final reports. This study assesses Laboratory Accreditation Program (LAP) participation and new Checklist items' impact on flow cytometry MRD testing. Objectives.— To survey flow cytometry laboratories about MRD testing for B-ALL and plasma cell myeloma. In particular, enumerate the laboratories performing MRD testing, the proportion performing assays with very low LLODs, and implementation of new Checklist items. Design.— Supplemental questions were distributed in the 2017-A mailing to 548 flow cytometry laboratories subscribed to the College of American Pathologists FL3 Proficiency Testing Survey (Flow Cytometry–Immunophenotypic Characterization of Leukemia/Lymphoma). Results.— The percentage of laboratories performing MRD studies has significantly decreased since 2014. Wide ranges of LLOD and collection event numbers were reported for B-ALL and plasma cell myeloma. Most laboratories determine LLOD by using dilutional studies and include it in final reports; a higher proportion of LAP participants used these practices than nonparticipants. Conclusions.— Several MRD testing aspects vary among laboratories receiving FL3 Proficiency Testing materials. After the survey in 2014, new Checklist items were implemented. As compared to 2014, fewer laboratories are performing MRD studies. While LLOD remains heterogeneous, a high proportion of LAP subscribers follow the new Checklist requirements and, overall, target LLOD recommendations from disease-specific working groups are met.

scholarly journals Marked Variability in Reported Minimal Residual Disease Lower Level of Detection of 4 Hematolymphoid Neoplasms: A Survey of Participants in the College of American Pathologists Flow Cytometry Proficiency Testing Program

2015 ◽  
Vol 139 (10) ◽  
pp. 1276-1280 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Keeney ◽  
Jaimie G. Halley ◽  
Daniel D. Rhoads ◽  
M. Qasim Ansari ◽  
Steven J. Kussick ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Flow Cytometry ◽  
Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia ◽  
Minimal Residual Disease ◽  
Plasma Cell ◽  
Myeloid Leukemia ◽  
Residual Disease ◽  
Lymphoblastic Leukemia ◽  
Lymphocytic Leukemia ◽  
Plasma Cell Myeloma ◽  
Minimal Residual

Context Flow cytometry is often applied to minimal residual disease (MRD) testing in hematolymphoid neoplasia. Because flow-based MRD tests are developed in the laboratory, testing methodologies and lower levels of detection (LODs) are laboratory dependent. Objectives To broadly survey flow cytometry laboratories about MRD testing in laboratories, if performed, including indications and reported LODs. Design Voluntary supplemental questions were sent to the 549 laboratories participating in the College of American Pathologists (CAP) FL3-A Survey (Flow Cytometry—Immunophenotypic Characterization of Leukemia/Lymphoma) in the spring of 2014. Results A total of 500 laboratories (91%) responded to the supplemental questions as part of the FL3-A Survey by April 2014; of those 500 laboratories, 167 (33%) currently perform MRD for lymphoblastic leukemia, 118 (24%) for myeloid leukemia, 99 (20%) for chronic lymphocytic leukemia, and 91 (18%) for plasma cell myeloma. Other indications include non-Hodgkin lymphoma, hairy cell leukemia, neuroblastoma, and myelodysplastic syndrome. Most responding laboratories that perform MRD for lymphoblastic leukemia reported an LOD of 0.01%. For myeloid leukemia, chronic lymphocytic leukemia, and plasma cell myeloma, most laboratories indicated an LOD of 0.1%. Less than 3% (15 of 500) of laboratories reported LODs of 0.001% for one or more MRD assays performed. Conclusions There is major heterogeneity in the reported LODs of MRD testing performed by laboratories subscribing to the CAP FL3-A Survey. To address that heterogeneity, changes to the Flow Cytometry Checklist for the CAP Laboratory Accreditation Program are suggested that will include new requirements that each laboratory (1) document how an MRD assay's LOD is measured, and (2) include the LOD or lower limit of enumeration for flow-based MRD assays in the final diagnostic report.

Evaluation of a 5-Color Flow Cytometric Technique for Immunophenotyping and Quantitation of Plasma Cell Myeloma in Post-Therapy Bone Marrows.

Blood ◽  
2006 ◽  
Vol 108 (11) ◽  
pp. 5036-5036
Author(s):  
Tove Isaacson ◽  
Andrzej Jakubowiak ◽  
Lloyd Stoolman ◽  
Usha Kota ◽  
William Finn ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bone Marrow ◽  
Flow Cytometry ◽  
Minimal Residual Disease ◽  
Plasma Cell ◽  
Plasma Cells ◽  
Residual Disease ◽  
Plasma Cell Myeloma ◽  
Color Flow ◽  
Flow Cytometric ◽  
Minimal Residual

Abstract Multiparameter flow cytometry is a useful tool for comprehensive immunophenotyping of plasma cell myeloma, and has been proposed as a sensitive method for the evaluation of minimal residual disease in patients following treatment. This study aimed to assess the value of flow cytometry in quantitation of residual disease, in comparison to routine morphologic examination of first-pull bone marrow aspirate smears, in myeloma patients post-therapy. Heparinized bone marrow aspirates were obtained from 27 treated patients with plasma cell myeloma. Cells were prepared for 5-color flow cytometric analysis within 24-hours of specimen draw. Surface membrane staining with anti-CD19, CD20, CD38, CD45, CD56, and CD138 was followed by ammonium chloride lysis of red cells. Fixed and permeabilized cells were analyzed for cytoplasmic light chains to confirm clonality. Data were acquired using an FC500 flow cytometer (Beckman-Coulter), analyzed with CXP software with plasma cells isolated based on bright CD38+ or CD138+ expression. A median of 97,639 cellular events (range 14,279 to 262,508) were collected per analysis. Flow cytometric enumeration of plasma cells was compared to 500-cell differential counts of Wright-Giemsa-stained first-pull aspirate smears from the same cases. The median plasma cell count as determined by flow cytometry was 0.5% (range 0–7.9%). The median plasma cell count estimated by morphologic review was 8.0% (range 0–84.4%). Flow cytometry underestimated the plasma cell content in all but one case. Clonal plasma cells expressed CD38 and CD138 in all cases; 87.5% (21/24) coexpressed CD56, 25% (6/24) coexpressed CD45, and 4.2% (1/24) coexpressed CD19. None was positive for CD20. Although detection of minimal residual disease after therapy for acute leukemia is routinely achieved by flow cytometric analysis, successful quantitation of minimal residual disease in treated myeloma patients using flow cytometry remains limited as it usually underestimates the plasma cell content of bone marrow samples compared to routine morphology of first-pull aspirates. We have observed that this holds true for both pre-treatment and post-treatment specimens. Causes for the discrepancy may include hemodilution of second-pull aspirates used for flow cytometry, fragility and loss of plasma cells during preparation for flow cytometry, and incomplete disaggregation of plasma cells from bone marrow spicules. With improved outcome of treatments, better and more reliable methods of detection of minimal residual disease are needed for optimal prognostic stratification. We are currently validating alternative methods, which may offer more sensitivity while at the same time allow more objectivity, for assessing the amount of minimal residual disease in myeloma patients.

Minimal Residual Disease Monitoring in Childhood Precursor B Lymphoblastic Leukemia with t(12;21)(p13;q22); ETV6-RUNX1: A Comparison Between Quantitative RT-PCR and Flow Cytometry

Blood ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 124 (21) ◽  
pp. 3774-3774
Author(s):  
Sofie J Alm ◽  
Charlotte Engvall ◽  
Julia Asp ◽  
Lars Palmqvist ◽  
Jonas Abrahamsson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Flow Cytometry ◽  
Minimal Residual Disease ◽  
Residual Disease ◽  
Lymphoblastic Leukemia ◽  
Fusion Transcript ◽  
Terminal Deoxynucleotidyl Transferase ◽  
Time Points ◽  
Qrt Pcr ◽  
Minimal Residual

Abstract The translocation t(12;21)(p13;q22) resulting in the fusion gene ETV6-RUNX1, is the most frequent gene fusion in childhood precursor B lymphoblastic leukemia (pre-B ALL), affecting about one in four children with pre-B ALL. In the NOPHO ALL-2008 treatment protocol, treatment assignment in pre-B ALL is based on clinical parameters, genetic aberrations, and results from analysis of minimal residual disease (MRD) at day 29 and 79 during treatment (where MRD >0.1% leads to upgrading of treatment). For pre-B ALL, in this protocol MRD analysis is performed using flow cytometry as the method of choice. In this study, we also analyzed MRD in t(12;21)(p13;q22) cases with quantitative reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR) for the fusion transcript ETV6-RUNX1 in parallel with routine MRD analysis with flow cytometry, to determine if qRT-PCR of the ETV6-RUNX1 fusion transcript would be a reliable alternative to FACS. Bone marrow samples were collected at diagnosis and at day 15, 29 and 79 during treatment from 31 children treated according to the NOPHO ALL-2000 (n = 3) and NOPHO ALL-2008 (n = 28) protocols in Gothenburg, Sweden, between 2006 and 2013. Samples were analyzed in parallel with qRT-PCR for ETV6-RUNX1 fusion transcript and with FACS. For qRT-PCR, mRNA was isolated, cDNA synthesized, and qRT-PCR performed with GUSB as reference gene. MRD-qRT-PCR was defined as the ETV6-RUNX1/GUSB ratio at the follow-up time point (day 15/29/79) divided with the ETV6-RUNX1/GUSB ratio at diagnosis (%). MRD analysis with FACS was performed, after lysis of erythrocytes, using antibodies against CD10, CD19, CD20, CD22, CD34, CD38, CD45, CD58, CD66c, CD123, and terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase, and when applicable also CD13 and CD33. Results of MRD-FACS were expressed as % of all cells. In total, 83 samples were analyzed with both methods in parallel; 31 from day 15 in treatment, 28 from day 29, and 24 from day 79. Overall, MRD-qRT-PCR showed good correlation with MRD-FACS. In total, 31 samples were positive with qRT-PCR and 24 with FACS, with concordant results (positive with both methods or negative with both methods) in 89% of samples, when the limit of decision (positive/negative MRD) was set to 0.1%. The concordance was especially high at the treatment stratifying time points, i.e. day 29 and 79; 89% and 100%, respectively. No samples at these time points were positive with FACS but negative with qRT-PCR. During the follow-up period (6-81 months), one patient relapsed (with negative MRD with both methods at stratifying time points), and two succumbed from therapy-related causes. Our results show that there is a significant relationship between the results of MRD analysis using FACS and MRD analysis using qRT-PCR of ETV6-RUNX1 fusion transcript. The high concordance between the methods indicates that negative MRD using qRT-PCR is as reliable as negative MRD using FACS, and that qRT-PCR could therefore be an alternative to FACS in cases where FACS is not achievable. In comparison to quantitative PCR of TCR/Ig gene rearrangements, which is the current backup MRD method for cases with pre-B ALL in NOPHO ALL-2008, qRT-PCR of ETV6-RUNX1 is much less time and labor consuming, making it appealing in a clinical laboratory setting. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document