INTRODUCTION: In a companion methodological study, we compared two anti-ZAP-70 clones (1E7.2 AF 488 and SBZAP PE) and four selected methods of analysis. Clinical correlations are required for validation. METHODS: Multicolor flow-cytometric evaluation of ZAP-70, CD38, CD69, CD26, CD49d, and CD27 was tested in 45 untreated-CLL patients. Four methods of ZAP-70 expression analysis and a scoring system were designed. A correlation analysis between ZAP-70 score, immunoglobulin heavy chain variable (IGHV) mutational status, fluorescence in situ hybridization, and these biomarkers was undertaken. RESULTS: There is a strong correlation between ZAP-70 expression and IGHV mutational status. The scoring system for a single reagent (P = 0.0006 or 0.0002) favors the use of multiple methods of analysis. The combined score was substantially equivalent (P = 0.0003). There was also a correlation with del 13q14 (P = 0.017) and trisomy12 (P = 0.011). A correlation for CD38 and ZAP-70 score was seen using both 1E7.2 AF488 and SBZAP PE when ≥20% or ≥7% cutoff was used. A positive correlation was seen for CD49d expression using both reagents. CD26 showed a correlation with ZAP-70 expression, but it was dependent upon the method of analysis. CD69 and CD27 showed no statistically significant correlation. CONCLUSION: In our study population, ZAP-70 expression is the better predictor of the IGHV mutational status. The correlation analysis confirms that the use of four methods of analysis with a single reagent or both reagents is superior to the use of a single method of analysis. The routine use of CD38, CD49d, and CD26 will require standardization. Published 2011 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
INTRODUCTION: In a companion methodological study, we compared two anti-ZAP-70 clones (1E7.2 AF 488 and SBZAP PE) and four selected methods of analysis. Clinical correlations are required for validation. METHODS: Multicolor flow-cytometric evaluation of ZAP-70, CD38, CD69, CD26, CD49d, and CD27 was tested in 45 untreated-CLL patients. Four methods of ZAP-70 expression analysis and a scoring system were designed. A correlation analysis between ZAP-70 score, immunoglobulin heavy chain variable (IGHV) mutational status, fluorescence in situ hybridization, and these biomarkers was undertaken. RESULTS: There is a strong correlation between ZAP-70 expression and IGHV mutational status. The scoring system for a single reagent (P = 0.0006 or 0.0002) favors the use of multiple methods of analysis. The combined score was substantially equivalent (P = 0.0003). There was also a correlation with del 13q14 (P = 0.017) and trisomy12 (P = 0.011). A correlation for CD38 and ZAP-70 score was seen using both 1E7.2 AF488 and SBZAP PE when ≥20% or ≥7% cutoff was used. A positive correlation was seen for CD49d expression using both reagents. CD26 showed a correlation with ZAP-70 expression, but it was dependent upon the method of analysis. CD69 and CD27 showed no statistically significant correlation. CONCLUSION: In our study population, ZAP-70 expression is the better predictor of the IGHV mutational status. The correlation analysis confirms that the use of four methods of analysis with a single reagent or both reagents is superior to the use of a single method of analysis. The routine use of CD38, CD49d, and CD26 will require standardization. Published 2011 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
Authors: Terry J Hamblin; Jenny A Orchard; Rachel E Ibbotson; Zadie Davis; Peter W Thomas; Freda K Stevenson; David G Oscier Journal: Blood Date: 2002-02-01 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Michael Hallek; Bruce D Cheson; Daniel Catovsky; Federico Caligaris-Cappio; Guillaume Dighiero; Hartmut Döhner; Peter Hillmen; Michael J Keating; Emili Montserrat; Kanti R Rai; Thomas J Kipps Journal: Blood Date: 2008-01-23 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: S Molica; G Vitelli; D Levato; G Crispino; M Dell'Olio; A Dattilo; R Matera; G M Gandolfo; P Musto Journal: Haematologica Date: 1998-05 Impact factor: 9.941
Authors: I Hus; M Podhorecka; A Bojarska-Junak; J Roliński; M Schmitt; M Sieklucka; E Wasik-Szczepanek; A Dmoszyńska Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2006-03-08 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: J L Binet; A Auquier; G Dighiero; C Chastang; H Piguet; J Goasguen; G Vaugier; G Potron; P Colona; F Oberling; M Thomas; G Tchernia; C Jacquillat; P Boivin; C Lesty; M T Duault; M Monconduit; S Belabbes; F Gremy Journal: Cancer Date: 1981-07-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Heba A Degheidy; David J Venzon; Mohammed Z H Farooqui; Fatima Abbasi; Diane C Arthur; Wyndham H Wilson; Adrian Wiestner; M A Stetler-Stevenson; Gerald E Marti Journal: Cytometry B Clin Cytom Date: 2011-10-26 Impact factor: 3.058
Authors: Paolo Strati; Sameer A Parikh; Kari G Chaffee; Sara J Achenbach; Susan L Slager; Timothy G Call; Wei Ding; Diane F Jelinek; Curtis A Hanson; Neil E Kay; Tait D Shanafelt Journal: Br J Haematol Date: 2017-04-07 Impact factor: 6.998