All content on this site is intended for healthcare professionals only. By acknowledging this message and accessing the information on this website you are confirming that you are a Healthcare Professional. If you are a patient or carer, please visit Know AML.

  TRANSLATE

The aml Hub website uses a third-party service provided by Google that dynamically translates web content. Translations are machine generated, so may not be an exact or complete translation, and the aml Hub cannot guarantee the accuracy of translated content. The aml and its employees will not be liable for any direct, indirect, or consequential damages (even if foreseeable) resulting from use of the Google Translate feature. For further support with Google Translate, visit Google Translate Help.

The AML Hub is an independent medical education platform, sponsored by Astellas, Daiichi Sankyo, Johnson & Johnson, Kura Oncology and Syndax, and has been supported through educational grants from Bristol Myers Squibb and the Hippocrate Conference Institute, an association of the Servier Group. The funders are allowed no direct influence on our content. The levels of sponsorship listed are reflective of the amount of funding given. View funders.

Now you can support HCPs in making informed decisions for their patients

Your contribution helps us continuously deliver expertly curated content to HCPs worldwide. You will also have the opportunity to make a content suggestion for consideration and receive updates on the impact contributions are making to our content.

Find out more

Mutation burden in the peripheral blood of AML and MDS patients

By Cynthia Umukoro

Share:

Mar 15, 2017


Assessment of therapeutic response in patients with Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML) and Myelodysplastic Syndrome (MDS) typically relies on the morphologic quantification of Bone Marrow (BM) blasts. However, this method is limited by sample error and challenging drug toxicities.

In a Letter to the Editor of Blood, Eric J. Duncavage and colleagues from the Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, USA, discuss their study which aimed to determine whether sequencing of Peripheral Blood (PB) samples is a feasible approach for determining clonal architecture and whether it might provide a less invasive measure of response of therapy in AML and MDS patients.

To do this, the authors quantified the mutation burden in the PB and compared it to the BM samples in twenty-seven patients (AML, n = 22; MDS, n = 5; median age = 73 years) with at least two somatic mutations in the BM treated with a 10-day course of decitabine (NCT01687400) at Washington University School of Medicine.

The key results of the study were:

  • Similar subclonal architecture and copy number variation were observed in patient samples from the PB and BM
  • Rate of clone mutational clearance during decitabine treatment correlated between the PB and BM; R2 = 0.69, P < 0.001

In summary, targeted PB mutation analysis recapitulates the genomic events observed in the BM blasts of AML and MDS patients. Additionally, PB mutation analysis quantifies the clearance of mutations as a distinct end point which is not influenced by drug toxicity.

The authors concluded by suggesting that “PB mutation analysis may provide a less invasive alternative for monitoring response to treatment” in AML and MDS patients which is not subject with the issues observed with BM monitoring.  

References