Analysis of chronic myeloid leukemia during deep molecular response by genomic PCR: a traffic light stratification model with impact on treatment-free remission

This work investigated patient-specific genomic BCR-ABL1 fusions as markers of measurable residual disease (MRD) in chronic myeloid leukaemia, with a focus on relevance to treatment-free remission (TFR) after achievement of deep molecular response (DMR) on tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) therapy. DNA and mRNA BCR-ABL1 measurements by qPCR were compared in 2189 samples (129 patients) and by digital PCR in 1279 sample (62 patients). A high correlation was found at levels of disease above MR4, but there was a poor correlation for samples during DMR. A combination of DNA and RNA MRD measurements resulted in a better prediction of molecular relapse-free survival (MRFS) after TKI stop (n = 17) or scheduled interruption (n = 25). At 18 months after treatment cessation, patients with stopped or interrupted TKI therapy who were DNA negative/RNA negative during DMR maintenance (green group) had an MRFS of 80% and 100%, respectively, compared with those who were DNA positive/RNA negative (MRFS = 57% and 67%, respectively; yellow group) or DNA positive/RNA positive (MRFS = 20% for both cohorts; red group). Thus, we propose a “traffic light” stratification as a TFR predictor based on DNA and mRNA BCR-ABL1 measurements during DMR maintenance before TKI cessation

Impact of BCR::ABL1 transcript type on RT-qPCR amplification performance and molecular response to therapy

Several studies have reported that chronic myeloid leukaemia (CML) patients expressing e14a2 BCR::ABL1 have a faster molecular response to therapy compared to patients expressing e13a2. To explore the reason for this difference we undertook a detailed technical comparison of the commonly used Europe Against Cancer (EAC) BCR::ABL1 reverse transcriptase quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) assay in European Treatment and Outcome Study (EUTOS) reference laboratories (n = 10). We found the amplification ratio of the e13a2 amplicon was 38% greater than e14a2 (p = 0.015), and the amplification efficiency was 2% greater (P = 0.17). This subtle difference led to measurable transcript-type dependent variation in estimates of residual disease which could be corrected by (i) taking the qPCR amplification efficiency into account, (ii) using alternative RT-qPCR approaches or (iii) droplet digital PCR (ddPCR), a technique which is relatively insensitive to differences in amplification kinetics. In CML patients, higher levels of BCR::ABL1/GUSB were identified at diagnosis for patients expressing e13a2 (n = 67) compared to e14a2 (n = 78) when analysed by RT-qPCR (P = 0.0005) but not ddPCR (P = 0.5). These data indicate that widely used RT-qPCR assays result in subtly different estimates of disease depending on BCR::ABL1 transcript type; these differences are small but may need to be considered for optimal patient management