Simple and reliably sensitive diagnosis and monitoring of Philadelphia chromosome-positive cells in chronic myeloid leukemia by interphase fluorescence in situ hybridization of peripheral blood cells

Yanagi, Mitsuaki; Shinjo, Kaori; Takeshita, Akira; Tobita, Tadasu; Yano, Kunio; Kobayashi, Masahide; Tazaki, Hiroshi; Naoe, Tomoki; Ohnishi, Kazunori; Ohno, Ryuzo

doi:10.1038/sj.leu.2401383

Cited by 33 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…[16][17] A limitation of interphase FISH method is the background of a variant proportion of false positive cells, depending on the probe/detection system used. [18][19][20][21] In practice, the limit of detection of CML cells is typically 1-5% and depends in part on which probes are used, the size of the nucleus, the precise position of the breakpoint within the ABL gene and the criteria used to define co-localization. 22 The advantage of FISH over conventional cytogenetics is the analysis of a larger number of nuclei, resulting in smaller sampling errors.…”

Section: Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization (Fish)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Detection and quantification of residual disease in chronic myelogenous leukemia

Hochhaus¹,

Weisser²,

Rosée³

et al. 2000

Leukemia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The degree of tumor load reduction after therapy is an important prognostic factor for patients with CML. Conventional metaphase analysis has been considered to be the 'gold standard' for evaluating patient response to treatment but this technique normally requires bone marrow aspiration and is therefore invasive. The frequency of cytogenetic analyses can be considerably reduced if patients are also monitored by molecular methods, which can be performed on peripheral blood specimens.

show abstract

Section: Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization (Fish)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Detection and quantification of residual disease in chronic myelogenous leukemia

Hochhaus¹,

Weisser²,

Rosée³

et al. 2000

Leukemia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[10][11][12][13][14][15] Previous studies focused on patients treated with IFN-based drug therapy, allogeneic and autologous stem cell transplantation. 10,13,16 While the correlation between I-FISH and BM metaphases is generally rather tight, there is considerable variation between studies, and there may be significant discrepancies between the two methods in individual patients.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

FISH for BCR-ABL on interphases of peripheral blood neutrophils but not of unselected white cells correlates with bone marrow cytogenetics in CML patients treated with imatinib

et al. 2003

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Interphase fluorescence in situ hybridization (I-FISH) for the BCR-ABL translocation performed on peripheral blood (PB) white cells has been suggested as a surrogate for conventional bone marrow (BM) cytogenetics for monitoring patients with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML). I-FISH is faster, less costly, and does not require BM aspiration. For patients treated with interferon-alpha (IFN), a good correlation between the two methods has been demonstrated in several though not all studies. However, imatinib mesylate (STI571) has largely replaced IFN as the standard drug treatment for CML, raising the question if the results obtained in IFN-treated patients are applicable to patients on imatinib. We therefore compared the two methods in patients on imatinib and patients on other therapies, mainly IFN (collectively referred to as nonimatinib therapies). Our results demonstrate that the correlation between I-FISH and cytogenetics is much weaker in patients on imatinib than in patients on nonimatinib therapies. Correction of the I-FISH values for the proportion of lymphocytes barely improved the correlation, probably as a result of unpredictable proportions of Philadelphia-positive B cells. By contrast, I-FISH of PB neutrophils was much better correlated with BM cytogenetics. We conclude that I-FISH on unselected PB white cells is not suitable for monitoring patients on imatinib.

show abstract

“…Muhlmann et al (1998), in a study of 30 paired PB and BM specimens obtained simultaneously from patients with different cytogenetic responses, showed an excellent correlation between quantification of BCR-ABL-positive cells from bone marrow and peripheral blood. However, two other reports, on a total of 53 paired specimens, showed that the levels of BCR-ABL cells detected in PB for most of the specimens were lower than that in the BM (Buno et al, 1998;Yanagi et al, 1999). In one of these reports, it was shown that, in 10 patients, the quantitative changes in the PB over an approximately 12-month course of IFN␣ therapy paralleled that of the BM, suggesting that monitoring with PB specimens could provide sufficient information as to whether patients respond to therapy (Buno et al, 1998;Yanagi et al, 1999).…”

Section: Interferon-␣-based Therapymentioning

confidence: 93%

“…However, two other reports, on a total of 53 paired specimens, showed that the levels of BCR-ABL cells detected in PB for most of the specimens were lower than that in the BM (Buno et al, 1998;Yanagi et al, 1999). In one of these reports, it was shown that, in 10 patients, the quantitative changes in the PB over an approximately 12-month course of IFN␣ therapy paralleled that of the BM, suggesting that monitoring with PB specimens could provide sufficient information as to whether patients respond to therapy (Buno et al, 1998;Yanagi et al, 1999). Given these findings, it can be inferred, however, that in the later stages of therapy when the leukemic burden is further reduced to below what can be detected in the peripheral blood, a BM specimen is still required for detection of minimal residual disease.…”

Section: Interferon-␣-based Therapymentioning

confidence: 93%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Chronic myelogenous leukemia: Laboratory diagnosis and monitoring

Wang

Bagg

Pear

et al. 2001

Genes Chromosomes & Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rapid developments have occurred both in laboratory medicine and in therapeutic interventions for the management of patients with chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML). With a wide array of laboratory tests available, selecting the appropriate test for a specific diagnostic or therapeutic setting has become increasingly difficult. In this review, we first discuss, from the point of view of laboratory medicine, the advantages and disadvantages of several commonly used laboratory assays, including cytogenetics, fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), and qualitative and quantitative reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). We then discuss, from the point of view of clinical care, the test(s) of choice for the most common clinical scenarios, including diagnosis and monitoring of the therapeutic response and minimal residual disease in patients treated with different therapies. The purpose of this review is to help clinicians and laboratory physicians select appropriate tests for the diagnosis and monitoring of CML, with the ultimate goal of improving the cost-effective usage of clinical laboratories and improving patient care.

show abstract

Simple and reliably sensitive diagnosis and monitoring of Philadelphia chromosome-positive cells in chronic myeloid leukemia by interphase fluorescence in situ hybridization of peripheral blood cells

Cited by 33 publications

References 27 publications

Detection and quantification of residual disease in chronic myelogenous leukemia

Detection and quantification of residual disease in chronic myelogenous leukemia

FISH for BCR-ABL on interphases of peripheral blood neutrophils but not of unselected white cells correlates with bone marrow cytogenetics in CML patients treated with imatinib

Chronic myelogenous leukemia: Laboratory diagnosis and monitoring

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About