Literature DB >> 9718378

Clinical significance of minimal residual disease in childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer--Childhood Leukemia Cooperative Group.

H Cavé1, J van der Werff ten Bosch, S Suciu, C Guidal, C Waterkeyn, J Otten, M Bakkus, K Thielemans, B Grandchamp, E Vilmer.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND METHODS: The implications of the detection of residual disease after treatment of acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) are unclear. We conducted a prospective study at 11 centers to determine the predictive value of the presence or absence of detectable residual disease at several points in time during the first six months after complete remission of childhood ALL had been induced. Junctional sequences of T-cell-receptor or immunoglobulin gene rearrangements were used as clonal markers of leukemic cells. Residual disease was quantitated with a competitive polymerase-chain-reaction (PCR) assay. Of 246 patients enrolled at diagnosis and treated with a uniform chemotherapy protocol, 178 were monitored for residual disease with one clone-specific probe (in 74 percent) or more than one probe (in 26 percent). The median follow-up period was 38 months.
RESULTS: The presence or absence and level of residual leukemia were significantly correlated with the risk of early relapse at each of the times studied (P<0.001). PCR measurements identified patients at high risk for relapse after the completion of induction therapy (those with > or =10(-2) residual blasts) or at later time points (those with > or =10(-3) residual blasts). Multivariate analysis showed that as compared with immunophenotype, age, risk group (standard or very high risk), and white-cell count at diagnosis, the presence or absence and level of residual disease were the most powerful independent prognostic factors.
CONCLUSIONS: Residual leukemia after induction of a remission is a powerful prognostic factor in childhood ALL. Detection of residual disease by PCR should be used to identify patients at risk for relapse and should be taken into account in considering alternative treatment.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9718378     DOI: 10.1056/NEJM199808273390904

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  N Engl J Med        ISSN: 0028-4793            Impact factor:   91.245


  127 in total

Review 1.  Molecular diagnostic approach to non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.

Authors:  D A Arber
Journal:  J Mol Diagn       Date:  2000-11       Impact factor: 5.568

Review 2.  The clinical relevance of detection of minimal residual disease in childhood acute lymphoblastic leukaemia.

Authors:  J Moppett; G A A Burke; C G Steward; A Oakhill; N J Goulden
Journal:  J Clin Pathol       Date:  2003-04       Impact factor: 3.411

Review 3.  Use of reporter genes for optical measurements of neoplastic disease in vivo.

Authors:  C H Contag; D Jenkins; P R Contag; R S Negrin
Journal:  Neoplasia       Date:  2000 Jan-Apr       Impact factor: 5.715

Review 4.  Chemotherapy of childhood lymphoblastic leukaemia: the first 50 years.

Authors:  J Lilleyman
Journal:  Paediatr Drugs       Date:  1999 Jul-Sep       Impact factor: 3.022

5.  Results of CoALL 07-03 study childhood ALL based on combined risk assessment by in vivo and in vitro pharmacosensitivity.

Authors:  Franziska Schramm; Udo Zur Stadt; Martin Zimmermann; Norbert Jorch; Arnulf Pekrun; Arndt Borkhardt; Thomas Imschweiler; Holger Christiansen; Jörg Faber; Irene Schmid; Tobias Feuchtinger; Gerhard Beron; Monique L den Boer; Rob Pieters; Martin A Horstmann; Gritta E Janka-Schaub; Gabriele Escherich
Journal:  Blood Adv       Date:  2019-11-26

6.  Genome-wide interrogation of germline genetic variation associated with treatment response in childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia.

Authors:  Jun J Yang; Cheng Cheng; Wenjian Yang; Deqing Pei; Xueyuan Cao; Yiping Fan; Stanley B Pounds; Geoffrey Neale; Lisa R Treviño; Deborah French; Dario Campana; James R Downing; William E Evans; Ching-Hon Pui; Meenakshi Devidas; W P Bowman; Bruce M Camitta; Cheryl L Willman; Stella M Davies; Michael J Borowitz; William L Carroll; Stephen P Hunger; Mary V Relling
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2009-01-28       Impact factor: 56.272

7.  Evaluating New Markers for Minimal Residual Disease Analysis by Flow Cytometry in Precursor B Lymphoblastic Leukemia.

Authors:  Sonal Jain; Anurag Mehta; Gauri Kapoor; Dinesh Bhurani; Sandeep Jain; Narendra Agrawal; Rayaz Ahmed; Dushyant Kumar
Journal:  Indian J Hematol Blood Transfus       Date:  2017-07-03       Impact factor: 0.900

8.  Blinatumomab for Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia: The First Bispecific T-Cell Engager Antibody to Be Approved by the EMA for Minimal Residual Disease.

Authors:  Sahra Ali; Alexandre Moreau; Daniela Melchiorri; Jorge Camarero; Filip Josephson; Odoardo Olimpier; Jonas Bergh; Dominik Karres; Kyriaki Tzogani; Christian Gisselbrecht; Francesco Pignatti
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2019-11-14

9.  Acute lymphoblastic leukemia in children: treatment planning via minimal residual disease assessment.

Authors:  Claus R Bartram; André Schrauder; Rolf Köhler; Martin Schrappe
Journal:  Dtsch Arztebl Int       Date:  2012-10-05       Impact factor: 5.594

10.  Prognostic impact of pretreatment cytogenetics in adult Philadelphia chromosome-negative acute lymphoblastic leukemia in the era of minimal residual disease.

Authors:  Ghayas C Issa; Hagop M Kantarjian; C Cameron Yin; Wei Qiao; Farhad Ravandi; Deborah Thomas; Nicholas J Short; Koji Sasaki; Guillermo Garcia-Manero; Tapan M Kadia; Jorge E Cortes; Naval Daver; Gautam Borthakur; Nitin Jain; Marina Konopleva; Issa Khouri; Partow Kebriaei; Richard E Champlin; Sherry Pierce; Susan M O'Brien; Elias Jabbour
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2016-10-03       Impact factor: 6.860

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.