Motor ability, function, and health-related quality of life as correlates of symptom burden in patients with sclerotic chronic graft-versus-host disease receiving imatinib mesylate.

PurposeTo explore improvement in motor ability, function, health-related quality of life (HRQOL), and symptom severity in patients with sclerotic chronic graft-versus-host disease (ScGVHD) in response to treatment as well as the relationship among changes on such measures.MethodsThis study was a secondary analysis of data from 13 individuals with severe ScGVHD enrolled in a clinical trial evaluating the efficacy of imatinib mesylate (clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT00702689). Self-reported, clinician-reported, and performance-based indicators of motor ability, function, HRQOL, and symptom severity were assessed at baseline and 6 months following the administration of imatinib mesylate.ResultsParticipants did not show statistically significant improvement on any measures over time. Approximately one-third of patients displayed clinically significant improvement on measures of motor ability (palmar pinch strength, dominant hand, 30.8%), functioning (Manual Ability Measure-36, 41.7%), HRQOL (Short Form 36 [SF-36] Mental Component Summary, 33.3%), and symptom severity (Lee Symptom Scale, 38.5%). Improvement in cGVHD symptom burden was correlated with improvement in function (Assessment of Motor and Process Skills [AMPS] and Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand [DASH] scores) and HRQOL (SF-36 Physical Component Summary scores).ConclusionsFindings suggest the potential utility of administering patient-reported and performance-based functional measures, such as the DASH and the AMPS, to patients with cGVHD. By understanding the functional consequences of ScGVHD, interdisciplinary teams of health care providers, including rehabilitation professionals, can work to improve long-term outcomes

Quantitative comparison of DNA methylation assays for biomarker development and clinical applications

The BLUEPRINT consortiumDNA methylation patterns are altered in numerous diseases and often correlate with clinically relevant information such as disease subtypes, prognosis and drug response. With suitable assays and after validation in large cohorts, such associations can be exploited for clinical diagnostics and personalized treatment decisions. Here we describe the results of a community-wide benchmarking study comparing the performance of all widely used methods for DNA methylation analysis that are compatible with routine clinical use. We shipped 32 reference samples to 18 laboratories in seven different countries. Researchers in those laboratories collectively contributed 21 locus-specific assays for an average of 27 predefined genomic regions, as well as six global assays. We evaluated assay sensitivity on low-input samples and assessed the assays' ability to discriminate between cell types. Good agreement was observed across all tested methods, with amplicon bisulfite sequencing and bisulfite pyrosequencing showing the best all-round performance. Our technology comparison can inform the selection, optimization and use of DNA methylation assays in large-scale validation studies, biomarker development and clinical diagnostics.This work was performed in the context of the BLUEPRINT project (European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme grant agreement 282510), which funded the study logistics and the integrative data analysis. The assay costs were paid by the contributing laboratories using institutional funds and the following grants: BBSRC BB/G020930/1, BBSRC BB/G020930/1, BMBF 01KU1001A, BMBF 01KU1002A, BMBF 01KU1216F, EU-FP7 282510, FWF I 1575-B19, NHMRC 1063559, NHMRC 1088144 and the DKFZ Graduate School.Peer Reviewe

Quantitative comparison of DNA methylation assays for biomarker development and clinical applications.

DNA methylation patterns are altered in numerous diseases and often correlate with clinically relevant information such as disease subtypes, prognosis and drug response. With suitable assays and after validation in large cohorts, such associations can be exploited for clinical diagnostics and personalized treatment decisions. Here we describe the results of a community-wide benchmarking study comparing the performance of all widely used methods for DNA methylation analysis that are compatible with routine clinical use. We shipped 32 reference samples to 18 laboratories in seven different countries. Researchers in those laboratories collectively contributed 21 locus-specific assays for an average of 27 predefined genomic regions, as well as six global assays. We evaluated assay sensitivity on low-input samples and assessed the assays' ability to discriminate between cell types. Good agreement was observed across all tested methods, with amplicon bisulfite sequencing and bisulfite pyrosequencing showing the best all-round performance. Our technology comparison can inform the selection, optimization and use of DNA methylation assays in large-scale validation studies, biomarker development and clinical diagnostics

Quantitative comparison of DNA methylation assays for biomarker development and clinical applications

International audienceDNA methylation patterns are altered in numerous diseases and often correlate with clinically relevant information such as disease subtypes, prognosis and drug response. With suitable assays and after validation in large cohorts, such associations can be exploited for clinical diagnostics and personalized treatment decisions. Here we describe the results of a community-wide benchmarking study comparing the performance of all widely used methods for DNA methylation analysis that are compatible with routine clinical use. We shipped 32 reference samples to 18 laboratories in seven different countries. Researchers in those laboratories collectively contributed 21 locus-specific assays for an average of 27 predefined genomic regions, as well as six global assays. We evaluated assay sensitivity on low-input samples and assessed the assays' ability to discriminate between cell types. Good agreement was observed across all tested methods, with amplicon bisulfite sequencing and bisulfite pyrosequencing showing the best all-round performance. Our technology comparison can inform the selection, optimization and use of DNA methylation assays in large-scale validation studies, biomarker development and clinical diagnostics