MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4389246620 · doi:10.1182/blood-2023-173685

Cell-Free DNA from Blood or Bone Marrow as Alternatives to Bone Marrow Cells for Molecular Diagnostics and Monitoring of Multiple Myeloma

2023· article· en· W4389246620 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Dor Abelman, Jenna Eagles, Stephanie Pedersen, Arnavaz Danesh, Danielle Croucher, Jeffrey P. Bruce, Stephenie D. Prokopec, Ellen Wei, Saumil Shah, Alli Murugesan, Tony Reiman, Suzanne Trudel, Trevor J. Pugh

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2023
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
ThématiqueCancer Genomics and Diagnostics
Établissements canadiensOntario Institute for Cancer ResearchDalhousie UniversityUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of TorontoUniversity of New BrunswickSaint John Regional HospitalPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésBone marrowMultiple myelomaConcordanceMedicineCell-free fetal DNALiquid biopsyCirculating tumor cellMolecular biologyCancer researchOncologyCancerInternal medicineBiologyMetastasisGenetics

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Introduction: Molecular profiling of bone marrow (BM) tumor cells in multiple myeloma (MM) can be limited by low tumor cell content for analysis by multiple assays. We therefore evaluated the concordance of molecular profiles of cancer cells enriched from BM versus cell-free DNA (cfDNA) derived from peripheral blood (PB) and BM plasma collected at diagnosis. Use of cfDNA has the potential to enable the prioritization of scarce cancer cells for single-cell RNA-sequencing or other applications that require intact cells. Methods: The MM Molecular Monitoring (M4) Study is a prospective cohort study of newly diagnosed MM patients (pts) receiving standard-of-care treatment at 12 sites across Canada. From 27 pts in this study, we analyzed diagnostic BM-derived CD138+ enriched plasma cell (PC) DNA (n=27, 15-20 mL BM per pt), BM plasma cfDNA (n=26 same tube as BM sampling), PB cfDNA (n=27, 15-20 mL), and PB buffy coat DNA (n=27, 4-6mL) using a combination of a targeted next generation sequencing (NGS) panel (10,000X coverage) and shallow (0.1-1X) whole-genome sequencing (sWGS). PB and BM samples collected in STRECK and EDTA tubes, respectively incurred overnight shipping to a central lab for initial processing. The targeted panel includes exons from 37 genes of potential clinical relevance, all immunoglobulin (Ig) loci, and 5 MM-specific translocation hotspots. CD138+ PCs were profiled by clinical FISH for recurrent MM translocations and copy number variations (CNVs). Results: All PB and BM cfDNA samples yielded sufficient DNA quantity for analyses (>20ng), yet only 19/26 BM cfDNA samples passed quality control and were sequenced. Various strategies such as shearing, dilution, and the use of heparinase were not effective in salvaging the failed BM cfDNA. However, the high success rate in a separate local study (24/25 BM cfDNA samples) suggests shipping in non-cell stabilizing tubes may have contributed to failures. The average DNA yield for PB and BM cfDNA samples was 1408ng (sd = 2752ng) and 2462ng (sd = 4301ng), respectively. We estimated tumor fraction (TF) by examining the proportion of genome altered by CNVs using ichorCNA in samples with sWGS. 14/24 (58%) of PB cfDNA samples and 10/18 (56%) of BM cfDNA samples had a high TF (>5%). TF in PB and BM cfDNA were significantly correlated (rho = 0.85, p < 0.001, n = 18 pairs), but were consistently higher in PB cfDNA (p = 0.03, n = 18 pairs). We first compared mutations between BM-derived PCs and cfDNA. We found 12 distinct somatic mutations (variant allele fraction >1%) that were previously reported to have a pathogenic effect in 11/27 (41%) PC samples. This consisted of 10 single nucleotide variants (SNVs) and 2 deletions across NRAS, BRAF, KRAS, CYLD and PRDM1. We found 9/12 mutations in matched PB cfDNA samples [sensitivity (SN)=75%] and 4/8 mutations in matched BM cfDNA (SN = 50%). We next searched for FISH-validated chromosome rearrangements among enriched BM PCs. From these, we correctly detected 5/8 (63%) fusions using the targeted panel that were called out by clinical FISH. These were further detected in matched PB cfDNA (4/5) and BM cfDNA (2/4) samples. Recurrent MM CNVs (amplification at chromosome 1q or deletions at chromosomes 1p, 13p or 17p) were identified in 18/27 (67%) PC samples by sWGS. These CNVs were successfully detected in 8/9 matched PB cfDNA samples with high TF (by sWGS) and in 2/7 samples with low TF. In BM cfDNA, CNVs were successfully detected in 7/8 high TF samples and 1/6 low TF samples. Lastly, we evaluated BCR Ig rearrangements. We detected a clonal Ig rearrangement in 26/27 (96%) BM-derived PC samples. These clones were detected in 25/26 (96%) matched PC to PB cfDNA pairs and in 16/18 (89%) PC to BM cfDNA pairs. The proportion of fragments at Ig loci which corresponded to productive Ig rearrangements was significantly correlated with TF in PB cfDNA (rho = 0.62, p = 0.002, n = 23) but not in BM cfDNA (rho = 0.37, p = 0.14, n = 17). Conclusions: PB cfDNA yielded 78% of the aberrations detected in BM-derived PCs, whereas BM cfDNA yielded 62%. The lower rate of detection in BM cfDNA may reflect DNA contamination from dying white blood cells as a result of shipping BM samples in non-cell stabilizing preservative tubes. BM and PB cfDNA contain highly concordant CNV calls to PCs when cfDNA TF estimates were >5%. Tumor Ig rearrangements were more readily detected in cfDNA compared to other sources of variation and may provide a less-invasive alternative for disease monitoring.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,004
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,008

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0010,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,010
Tête enseignante GPT0,241
Écart entre enseignants0,231 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations3
Publié2023
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBloodMême sujetCancer Genomics and DiagnosticsTravaux en français237 207