BACKGROUND: The increasing application of multi-color flow cytometry assays for staging and follow-up in mantle cell lymphoma necessitates that the specificity and sensitivity of this technique are evaluated. Data from prospective clinical trials comparing the clinical applicability of flow cytometry to routine diagnostic methods and to polymerase chain reaction are currently lacking. DESIGN AND METHODS: We applied a standardized four-color flow cytometry assay to 281 prospectively collected peripheral blood and bone marrow samples from 98 patients with mantle cell lymphoma participating in a multi-center clinical trial and compared the results to those obtained with conventional clinical staging and consensus primer IGH-polymerase chain reaction. RESULTS: The maximum sensitivity of flow cytometry using light chain restriction in CD19+CD5+ subpopulations was 8.0 x 10(-4) while flow cytometry that relied on immunophenotypic aberrations was less sensitive (2.4 x 10(-3)). Mantle cell lymphoma cells were detected in 87.3% of 110 pre-treatment samples from 84 patients by flow cytometry and in 94.5% by polymerase chain reaction. Eight out of 84 patients (9.5%) diagnosed clinically as having stage II or III disease showed peripheral blood or bone marrow involvement according to flow cytometry, thus documenting more advanced disease. At follow-up residual lymphoma cells were detected by flow cytometry and concordantly by polymerase chain reaction in 10/171 samples (5.8%); however, 31 follow-up samples (18.1%) were positive for minimal residual disease according only to polymerase chain reaction analysis. CONCLUSIONS: The sensitivity of four-color flow cytometry is comparable to that of IGH-polymerase chain reaction at initial staging but is less sensitive at follow-up after immuno-chemotherapy. Both techniques are highly valuable methods for accurate initial staging.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: The increasing application of multi-color flow cytometry assays for staging and follow-up in mantle cell lymphoma necessitates that the specificity and sensitivity of this technique are evaluated. Data from prospective clinical trials comparing the clinical applicability of flow cytometry to routine diagnostic methods and to polymerase chain reaction are currently lacking. DESIGN AND METHODS: We applied a standardized four-color flow cytometry assay to 281 prospectively collected peripheral blood and bone marrow samples from 98 patients with mantle cell lymphoma participating in a multi-center clinical trial and compared the results to those obtained with conventional clinical staging and consensus primer IGH-polymerase chain reaction. RESULTS: The maximum sensitivity of flow cytometry using light chain restriction in CD19+CD5+ subpopulations was 8.0 x 10(-4) while flow cytometry that relied on immunophenotypic aberrations was less sensitive (2.4 x 10(-3)). Mantle cell lymphoma cells were detected in 87.3% of 110 pre-treatment samples from 84 patients by flow cytometry and in 94.5% by polymerase chain reaction. Eight out of 84 patients (9.5%) diagnosed clinically as having stage II or III disease showed peripheral blood or bone marrow involvement according to flow cytometry, thus documenting more advanced disease. At follow-up residual lymphoma cells were detected by flow cytometry and concordantly by polymerase chain reaction in 10/171 samples (5.8%); however, 31 follow-up samples (18.1%) were positive for minimal residual disease according only to polymerase chain reaction analysis. CONCLUSIONS: The sensitivity of four-color flow cytometry is comparable to that of IGH-polymerase chain reaction at initial staging but is less sensitive at follow-up after immuno-chemotherapy. Both techniques are highly valuable methods for accurate initial staging.
Authors: J J M van Dongen; L Lhermitte; S Böttcher; J Almeida; V H J van der Velden; J Flores-Montero; A Rawstron; V Asnafi; Q Lécrevisse; P Lucio; E Mejstrikova; T Szczepański; T Kalina; R de Tute; M Brüggemann; L Sedek; M Cullen; A W Langerak; A Mendonça; E Macintyre; M Martin-Ayuso; O Hrusak; M B Vidriales; A Orfao Journal: Leukemia Date: 2012-05-03 Impact factor: 11.528
Authors: Stephen E Spurgeon; Brian G Till; Peter Martin; Andre H Goy; Martin P Dreyling; Ajay K Gopal; Michael LeBlanc; John P Leonard; Jonathan W Friedberg; Lawrence Baizer; Richard F Little; Brad S Kahl; Mitchell R Smith Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2016-12-31 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Christiane Pott; Eva Hoster; Marie-Helene Delfau-Larue; Kheira Beldjord; Sebastian Böttcher; Vahid Asnafi; Anne Plonquet; Reiner Siebert; Evelyne Callet-Bauchu; Niels Andersen; Jacques J M van Dongen; Wolfram Klapper; Françoise Berger; Vincent Ribrag; Achiel L van Hoof; Marek Trneny; Jan Walewski; Peter Dreger; Michael Unterhalt; Wolfgang Hiddemann; Michael Kneba; Hanneke C Kluin-Nelemans; Olivier Hermine; Elizabeth Macintyre; Martin Dreyling Journal: Blood Date: 2009-12-23 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Erik Magnusson; Qing Cao; Michael A Linden; Jerry Frolich; Vidhu Anand; Linda J Burns; Veronika Bachanova Journal: Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk Date: 2013-11-15
Authors: Wolfram Klapper; Eva Hoster; Olaf Determann; Ilske Oschlies; Jeroen van der Laak; Françoise Berger; Heinz Wolfram Bernd; José Cabeçadas; Elias Campo; Sergio Cogliatti; Martin Leo Hansmann; Philip M Kluin; Roman Kodet; Yuri A Krivolapov; Christoph Loddenkemper; Harald Stein; Peter Möller; Thomas E F Barth; Konrad Müller-Hermelink; Andreas Rosenwald; German Ott; Stefano Pileri; Elisabeth Ralfkiaer; Grzegorz Rymkiewicz; Johan H van Krieken; Hans Heinrich Wacker; Michael Unterhalt; Wolfgang Hiddemann; Martin Dreyling Journal: J Hematop Date: 2009-06-16 Impact factor: 0.196