Suppr超能文献

在多中心环境中定义共识性白血病相关免疫表型,以检测急性髓系白血病的微小残留病。

Defining consensus leukemia-associated immunophenotypes for detection of minimal residual disease in acute myeloid leukemia in a multicenter setting.

机构信息

Department of Hematology, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

出版信息

Blood Cancer J. 2013 Aug 2;3(8):e129. doi: 10.1038/bcj.2013.27.

Abstract

Flow-cytometric detection of minimal residual disease (MRD) has proven in several single-institute studies to have an independent prognostic impact. We studied whether this relatively complex approach could be performed in a multicenter clinical setting. Five centers developed common protocols to accurately define leukemia-associated (immuno)phenotypes (LAPs) at diagnosis required to establish MRD during/after treatment. List mode data files were exchanged, and LAPs were designed by each center. One center, with extensive MRD experience, served as the reference center and coordinator. In quarterly meetings, consensus LAPs were defined, with the performance of centers compared with these. In a learning (29 patients) and a test phase (35 patients), a mean of 2.2 aberrancies/patient was detected, and only 1/63 patients (1.6%) had no consensus LAP(s). For the four centers without (extensive) MRD experience, clear improvement could be shown: in the learning phase, 39-63% of all consensus LAPs were missed, resulting in a median 30% of patients (range 21-33%) for whom no consensus LAP was reported; in the test phase, 27-40% missed consensus LAPs, resulting in a median 16% (range 7-18%) of 'missed' patients. The quality of LAPs was extensively described. Immunophenotypic MRD assessment in its current setting needs extensive experience and should be limited to experienced centers.

摘要

流式细胞术检测微小残留病 (MRD) 已被多项单中心研究证明具有独立的预后影响。我们研究了这种相对复杂的方法是否可以在多中心临床环境中进行。五个中心制定了共同的方案,以准确定义诊断时所需的与白血病相关的(免疫)表型 (LAP),以便在治疗期间/之后进行 MRD 检测。列表模式数据文件被交换,并且由每个中心设计 LAP。一个中心具有丰富的 MRD 经验,充当参考中心和协调员。在季度会议上,定义了共识 LAP,并比较了中心的表现。在学习阶段(29 例患者)和测试阶段(35 例患者),平均每个患者检测到 2.2 个异常,只有 1/63 例患者(1.6%)没有共识 LAP。对于四个没有(广泛)MRD 经验的中心,可以明显看到改善:在学习阶段,所有共识 LAP 中有 39-63%被遗漏,导致中位数为 30%的患者(范围为 21-33%)没有报告共识 LAP;在测试阶段,有 27-40%的共识 LAP 被遗漏,导致中位数为 16%(范围为 7-18%)的“遗漏”患者。LAP 的质量得到了广泛的描述。在当前环境下进行免疫表型 MRD 评估需要丰富的经验,并且应仅限于有经验的中心。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/66ed/3763381/dc0abd7d6372/bcj201327f1.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验