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.
Introducing
Now you can personalise
your AML Hub experience!
Bookmark content to read later
Select your specific areas of interest
View content recommended for you
Find out moreThe 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 Hub 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 Daiichi Sankyo, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Johnson & Johnson, Kura Oncology, Roche, Syndax and Thermo Fisher, and has been supported through a grant from Bristol Myers Squibb. 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.
Bookmark this article
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.
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.
Your opinion matters
Subscribe to get the best content related to AML delivered to your inbox