MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2986080996 · doi:10.1182/blood-2019-122311

Value of Flow Cytometry for MRD-Based Relapse Prediction in B-Cell Precursor Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia in a Multi-Center Setting

2019· article· en· W2986080996 on OpenAlexaff
Signe Modvig, Hans O. Madsen, Heléne Hallböök, Sanna Siitonen, Liv Osnes, Susanne Rosthøj, Anne Tierens, Vesa Juvonen, Helen Vålerhaugen, Magnus Hultdin, Mats Ehinger, Anna Porwit, Rėda Matuzevičienė, Mindaugas Stoškus, Millaray Marincevic, Aili Lilleorg, Mervi Taskinen, Nina Toft, Ólafur Gísli Jónsson, Kaie Pruunsild, Goda Vaitkevičienė, Kim Vettenranta, Bendik Lund, Jonas Abrahamsson, Kjeld Schmiegelow, Hanne Vibeke Marquart

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Lymphoblastic Leukemia research
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMinimal residual diseaseInternal medicineOncologyRisk stratificationSingle CenterLeukemiaImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: PCR of rearranged antigen receptor genes is the method of choice for MRD quantification in ALL. Although FCM-MRD is faster and biologically more informative than PCR, the analysis requires a high level of training. The only larger published studies using FCM-MRD based stratification (Borowitz, Blood, 2008 and 2015) showed a clear association with clinical outcome in BCP-ALL. However, MRD analyses were centralized and these studies included only one MRD-based stratification (MRD levels at the end of induction). Patients and methods: We examined FCM-MRD as stratification tool in BCP-ALL at various timepoints in a large-scale multicenter (18 MRD centers) study. A total of 1487 patients with BCP-ALL (1298 children (younger than 18 years) and 189 adults (18-45 years) are included in the study and were treated according to the NOPHO ALL2008 protocol between July 2008 and February 2016. The median follow-up time for patients in first remission was 51 months (IQR 32-75). MRD was measured by FCM and/or real time quantitative PCR on days 15, 29 (end of induction) and 79 (for standard (SR) and intermediate risk (IR) patients) and prior to and after high risk blocks. A 6-colour FCM analysis including 3 standardized antibody combinations was used and performed in 18 laboratories. Patients were stratified by FCM-MRD, or by PCR-MRD if no FCM-MRD marker was available. End-of-induction MRD (cut-off 10-3) was used to stratify patients to standard risk (SR) vs intermediate risk (IR) or IR vs high risk consolidation therapy (in case of WBC > 100 x 109/L at diagnosis). Patients with MRD >=2.5x10-1 on day 15 were stratified to high risk block therapy. Patients with MRD >=5x10-2 on day 29 or day 79/post high risk-2 block MRD >=10-3 were stratified to HSCT. Primary outcomes were 5year event-free survival (5y EFS) and 5year cumulative incidence of relapse (5y CIR). Results: Only two patients (0.14% of total) had neither an informative FCM nor a PCR marker, and an informative FCM marker combination for MRD monitoring was identified in 96.2% of patients. There was a significant correlation between FCM- and PCR-MRD levels on day 15 (r=0.77, p<0.0001, n=153) and 29 (r=0.81, p<0.0001, n=140). Based on FCM-MRD only, the median MRD level on day 15, 29 and 79/post high risk-2 block was 5x10-3, 1.1x10-4, and below detection limit, respectively. Adults had significantly higher MRD levels at all time-points (p<0.0001 for day 15 and 29, p=0.0019 for day 79, Mann-Whitney). The 5y EFS was 86.1% (95% CI 84.1-88.1) with a 5y CIR of 9.5% (95% CI 7.8-11.3, n=1487). The day 29 FCM-MRD level was closely associated with clinical outcome and a higher hazard of relapse was seen independently for a FCM-MRD >=10-3 (hazard ratio (HR) 2.4, CI 1.6-3.7, p<0.0001), age>18 year (HR 3.0, CI 1.7-5.3, p<0.0001), WBC>=100 (HR 2.7, CI 1.6-4.6, p=0.0001), and B-other (HR 2.1, CI 1.2-3.5, p=0.0052) or high risk B-ALL cytogenetic aberration (rearranged KMT2A/iAMPchr21/hypodiploid) (HR 3.2, CI 1.6-6.1, p=0.0006) (multivariate cause-specific Cox regression, n=1328). Patients with a day 79 FCM-MRD >=10-4 and <10-3 had a significantly higher CIR (22.1%, CI 10.8-33.5%, n=68) compared to FCM-MRD <10-4 (7.5%, CI 2.1-12.8%, n=110) or undetectable (6.3%, CI 4.5-8.2%, n=999, p=0.0087 for FCM-MRD >=10-4 and <10-3vs <10-4 or undetectable). After adjusting for WBC, age, and the day 29 FCM-MRD level, a day 79 FCM-MRD >=10-4 and <10-3 was still significantly associated with a worse 5y CIR for non-transplanted patients (HR 2.3, CI 1.19-4.36, p=0.012 compared to undetectable FCM-MRD, n=1171). Patients with day 15 FCM-MRD <10-3 had a significantly better 5y EFS (92.0%, CI 89.2-95.0%) and CIR (3.9%, CI 1.7-6.1%, n=432) than patients with FCM-MRD >=10-3 and <2.5x10-1, who had a 5y EFS of 85.5% (CI 82.7-88.3%, p=0.0016, n=837) and a 3-fold higher 5y CIR (11.0%, CI 8.4-13.5%, p<0.0001, n=432). Among patients with day 15 FCM-MRD<10-3, the relapse incidence was comparable for patients with FCM-MRD 10-4 - <10-3 and below 10-4 (CIR 3.6, CI 0.5-6.7 vs. CIR 4.1, CI 1.0-7.2, p=0.83, n=432). Conclusion: FCM-MRD performed in a multi-center setting is a clinically useful method for disease monitoring and MRD-based treatment stratification in BCP-ALL. Moreover, FCM-MRD is a reliable indicator of outcome in BCP-ALL independently of other key risk factors. Residual disease >=10-4 and <10-3 at day 79 in SR/IR patients not allocated to HSCT further identifies patients with a high risk of relapse. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.258 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBloodSame topicAcute Lymphoblastic Leukemia researchFrench-language works237,207