Single tube 10-color bulk lysis assay for sensitive detection of residual plasma cell neoplasms: MSKCC experience Mikhail Roshal MD, PhD Director of Technical Flow Cytometry Development, Department of Laboratory Medicine Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center New York, NY
73
Embed
Single tube 10-color bulk lysis assay for sensitive ... · New York, NY. MSKCC Cell Marker Laboratory ... Initial work-up. Imaging. Whole-body-MRI with DWI, DCE- MRI. PET-CT. Sample
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Single tube 10-color bulk lysis assay for sensitive detection of residual plasma cell neoplasms: MSKCC experienceMikhail Roshal MD, PhDDirector of Technical Flow Cytometry Development,Department of Laboratory MedicineMemorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer CenterNew York, NY
MSKCC Cell Marker Laboratory
• Malignant Cell Immunophenotyping– 30 neoplastic samples/day– Leukemia, Lymphoma, Plasma cell neoplasms– Nearly all samples are for follow-up – MRD detection if B-ALL, AML, PCN, lymphoma– Ongoing clinical trial support
Early diagnosis, optimal treatment: Better overall survival in myeloma
Sigurður Yngvi Kristinsson, MD, PhDProfessor of HematologyUniversity of Iceland and Karolinska University Hospital
Myeloma-specific survival by age and year of diagnosis for the 1st 10 years after diagnosis (SEER 1973-2009)
Kristinsson, SY, et al. Leukemia 2014
We need new drugs!
CarfilzomibPomalidomideVorinostat
PanobinostatElotuzumabDaratumumabAnd many more dude
• Current guidelines suggest life-long clinical follow-up of people with MGUS
• The impact of diagnosing and conducting clinical follow-up of MGUS on myeloma survival is unclear
MGUS
Does follow-up for MGUS matter?
The Role of Diagnosis and Clinical Follow-up of Monoclonal Gammopathy of Undetermined Significance on Survival in Multiple Myeloma
Sigurdardottir EE, et al and Kristinsson SY. JAMA Oncol. 2015
The Role of Diagnosis and Clinical Follow-up of Monoclonal Gammopathy of Undetermined Significance on Survival in Multiple Myeloma
Sigurdardottir EE, et al and Kristinsson SY. JAMA Oncol. 2015
The Role of Diagnosis and Clinical Follow-up of Monoclonal Gammopathy of Undetermined Significance on Survival in Multiple Myeloma
Sigurdardottir EE, et al and Kristinsson SY. JAMA Oncol. 2015
Go R et al. Clin Lymph, Myel &Leuk 2015
SEER study on more than 17,000 myeloma patients
Follow-up of MGUS is important
“Makes sense“
We can improve survival in asymptomatic patients
Mateos MV et al NEJM 2013
Kristinsson SY, et al. NEJM 2013
We can get great response rates
Korde N et al. JAMA Onc 2015
New diagnostic criteria for myeloma
Rajkumar VS et al. Lancet Oncol 2014
“Makes sense“
We are not waiting for fractures or other symptomes any more
Should we screen for MGUS?
Wilson and Jungner classic screening criteria
1. The condition sought should be an important health problem.2. There should be an accepted treatment for patients with recognized disease.3. Facilities for diagnosis and treatment should be available.4. There should be a recognizable latent or early symptomatic stage.5. There should be a suitable test or examination.6. The test should be acceptable to the population.7. The natural history of the condition, including development from latent to declared disease, should be adequately understood.8. There should be an agreed policy on whom to treat as patients.9. The cost of case-finding (including diagnosis and treatment of patients diagnosed) should be economically balanced in relation to possible expenditure on medical care as a whole.10. Case-finding should be a continuing process and not a “once and for all” project.
Which should we screen?• Elderly?• Obese?• Race?• Osteporosis?• Prior autoimmune disease?• Family history?
Potential harm of screening• Cost• Psychological harm• Low risk of progression• Unnecessary evaluations
– Bone marrow, X-ray, MRI etc• Only non-aggressive disease is captured
Thoushalt notScreen
Outside a
Clinical trial
Thanks!
Karolinska University HospitalMagnus BjörkholmÅsa DerolfMalin HultcrantzEbba Lindqvist
University of IcelandSigrún Helga LundElín Edda SigurðardóttirGuðbjörg JónsdóttirVilhjálmur SteingrímssonMaríanna ÞórðardóttirKristrún AradóttirIngigerður Sverrisdóttir
Karolinska InstitutetTherese M-L AnderssonSandra ElorantaPaul W DickmanCaroline Weibull
National Institutes of HealthLynn R. GoldinRuth PfeifferMary L McMaster
Sahlgrenska University HospitalUlf-Henrik MellqvistCecilia Blimark
Skåne University HospitalIngemar Turesson
Umeå University HospitalAnders Wahlin Memorial Sloan Kettering
Ola LandgrenNeha KordeSham Mailankody
Thanks!
Support from
Stockholm County CouncilKarolinska Institutet FoundationsThe Swedish Cancer SocietyCancer Society in StockholmClinical Scientist Training Programme – KISwedish Blood Cancer SocietyMemorial fund of Ásrún EinarsdóttirLandpitali Research FundUniversity of Iceland Research FundThe Icelandic Research FundEU-grant (Marie-Curie)
Imaging-guided biopsies to capture residual disease and perform molecular characterization of MRD
Jens Hillengass MD
Department of Hematology and OncologyUniversity of Heidelberg
Prognostic significance of growth patterns in initial MRI
Jens Hillengass University of Heidelberg
Focal lesions in PET
initial after therapy
Courtesy of Stefan DelormeJens Hillengass University of Heidelberg
Diffusion weighted imaging
Jens Hillengass University of Heidelberg
Growth patterns of multiple myeloma
Jens Hillengass University of Heidelberg Walker 2007 JCO
Prognostic significance of residual lesions in MRI
Jens Hillengass University of Heidelberg
Prognostic Significance of residualfocal lesions after therapy
Hillengass 2012 Haematologica
p = 0.001
Prognostic significance of residual lesions in MRI
Jens Hillengass University of Heidelberg Hillengass 2012 Haematologica
Prognostic significance of residual lesions in MRI
initial after transplant
Jens Hillengass University of Heidelberg Hillengass 2012 Haematologica
Prognostic significance of residual lesions in MRI
Zamagni 2015 Clin Cancer ResJens Hillengass University of Heidelberg
Prognostic significance of residual lesions in PET-CT
Retrospective analysisN = 282 (73% treated with ASCT)
Jens Hillengass University of Heidelberg
Prognostic significance of residual lesions in PET-CT
N = 189 PET-CT after therapy88% ≧ VGPR55% CR
=> 29% of pts. in CR had residual lesions in PET-CTMedian PFS of PET + 44 monthsMedian PFS of PET - 84 months
Zamagni 2015 Clin Cancer Res
Jens Hillengass University of Heidelberg
Prognostic significance of residual lesions in PET-CT
Zamagni 2015 Clin Cancer Res
Jens Hillengass University of Heidelberg
Focal lesions at relapse
Walker 2007 JCO
Pattern at relapse
FL present in 54 patients (71%)
-20 patients (26%) with new MRI-FLs outside initial involvement
-21 (28%) larger than the original lesions
-11 (15%) with increase in size and new MRI-FLs
Primary aims
•Investigation of the genetic heterogeneity of malignant cells from focal lesions in different parts of the bone marrow compared with a “random sample” of the pelvis•Detection of different clones within a single lesion•Investigation of the clonal composition of residual lesions after systemic therapy
Jens Hillengass University of Heidelberg
Project
Work Plan
Initial work-upImaging
Whole-body-MRI with DWI, DCE-MRIPET-CT
Sample acquisitionRandom sampleBiopsy of up to 5 focal lesions
Sequential work-upafter systemic treatment if residual lesions are detectable
Initially
Post Treatment
Jens Hillengass University of Heidelberg
Project
Random BM-sample or
sample of FL
Ficoll
WBMLysis
MNC
MACS
CD138+ MMC
Flow (MRD)
FACSAria
Plasma cell content [%]
RNA DNA
iFISH
GEP SequencingJens Hillengass University of Heidelberg
Project
Jens Hillengass University of Heidelberg
Project
Jens Hillengass University of Heidelberg
Project
Jens Hillengass University of Heidelberg
Project
Jens Hillengass University of Heidelberg
Project
Jens Hillengass University of Heidelberg
Project
Project
Personnel• Jens Hillengass
=> Project supervision
• Hartmut Goldschmidt/ Jens Hillengass => Identification of
patients
• Sandra Sauer MD (hematologist) => Coordination
• Michaela Hillengass =>
Case management
• Jost Kloth MD (radiologist) =>
Identification of lesions
• Jennifer Mosebach (radiologist) => Image evaluation
• Stefan Hemmer MD (orthopedic surgeon) => Approval of lesions
Jens Hillengass University of Heidelberg
Thank you very much for your attention
S.D.G
Flow MRD Basics
• Most important parameters in MRD detection is number of cells analyzed AND quality of the sample.– Critical to establish precise sample handling
standards and numbers of cells standards– Critical to define when sample is NOT optimal
for analysis– Particularly important for definition of
“negative”• Incremental gains from adding additional
informative markers
Plasma Cell MRD History at MSKCC
• 25+ plasma cell flows/week. Peak 10-15/day• Gen 1: 4-color 7 tube (including isotypes) panel up to 500K cells
lyse/stain – Extremely time consuming (required a dedicated tech and
instrument) Difficult to analyze– Roughly 95% sensitive compared to morphology
• Gen 2:– One tube 8-color panel stain/lyse (up to 1.0 million cells)-
200ul. of marrow • CD38 CD138 CD56 CD117 CD19 CD45 cy kappa lambda• Very high sensitivity IF marrow is cellular (theoretically
0.0005%)• More sensitivity than FISH on sorted cells, IgH
(conventional)• Number of cells acquired depends on sample cellularity
Gen 3: for 10-color MRD with bulk lysis
• Consensus for using CD38, CD138, CD56, CD117, CD81, CD27, CD19, CD45 , kappa, lambda-10 currently suggested markers
• 10-color instruments are becoming more widespread (Navios/Canto 10)
• Efficient utilization of limiting resources – instrument time, sample amount, analysis time, digital
storage) vs. multi-tube panels– Acquisition of 5 million cells/tube =15-25 minutes+150 Mb
file• Reduces need for inferential reasoning and eliminates file
merging
MM MRD workflow
Clinical sample
Sample preparationprior to MPF
Sample acquisition time
MRD assessment
Data storage
Single-tube protocol
5 x 106 cells required
reagents for 1 tube
20-25 mins / case
? time
Data from 1 tube
Two-tube protocol
1 x 107 cells required
reagents for 2 tubes
40-50 mins / case
? time (inferential reasoning)
Data from 2 tubes
? Sufficient material for additional tests: cytogenetics , molecular etc.
Doubling of reagent costs
Doubling of dedicated lab technician time and reduced availability of FACS
• 53 (final version) samples from patients with plasma cell disorder follow-up (20 post transplant, pre (22) and unknown (2)) unselected sample leftovers– 8 color number of cells range: (74K-596K, Mean 383K)– 10 color (38K-8700K, Mean 5900K)
• 10 samples from patients with “other “ disorders: lymphoma, MDS, thrombocytopenia
• Compare to predicate method• Analyst blinded to results obtained by another method
Example of 10-color analysis
Accuracy PCN Patients
2 Method Comparison: % Neoplastic PC in WBC
Discrepant samples post transplant
Patient Outcome
Precision/Linearity/Limit of Detection
• 5 abnormal Plasma cell sample spiked into a normal samples in triplicate• 4 sequential 10X dilutions (3 points in triplicate)• All samples independently processed and stained• Measure precision at each level• Establish precision near lowest expected abnormal cell numbers • Measure recovery at each level• Range 4500-30 cells
Recovery slightly increases with fewer abnormal cells
Practical Points
• 10-color assay is highly sensitive single tube assay• Theoretical sensitivity is still dependent on sample
quality/number of cells• Approximately 4 hours from sample to report• 5-6 sample batch is ok• Cocktail (surface and light chain) is stable for at least 2 weeks• 15-25 minute instrument time/sample• 150 Mb file• 15 minute import/analysis/reporting time on average• Limited analysis of “other” populations
– Assess presence of mast cells/immature myeloid precursors/B-cell precursors
– Dedicated tubes run for other disorders as indicated
Euroflow vs. 10 PC: Cell Numbers in MSKCC# Events 10C PC Tube # Events EuroFlow