$$\rightleftharpoonup{xx}$$
$$\longleftharp{xx}$$,
$$\longrightharp{xx}$$,
Ample data are available that show evidence for MRD positivity being associated with poor survival, and therefore MRD assessment may improve patient outcome by providing additional prognostic information upon which clinical decisions can be made. Hence, a consistent and harmonized method for immuno-phenotypic assessment of MRD is essential to ultimately improve patient therapy. This is also important when comparing clinical studies across different clinical sites, and may ultimately help in clinical decision making and serving as a surrogate clinical endpoint for overall survival. The notion that solid guidelines are warranted for accurate and consistent MRD measurements has led to a concerted action of the European Leukemia Network (ELN) to design state of the art guidelines. This comprehensive document will be published late-2017, and will be instrumental for many study groups and laboratories moving forward.
Critical steps within the protocol
An important, and often overlooked aspect of MRD analysis is the impact of sample quality on accurate determination of MRD. This is more apparent when material has to be transported to other institutes in global clinical trials given the additional operational considerations that need to be taken into account in this setting. To reduce the risk of mixing up patient information and timely delivery of the samples adequate administration is crucial. Again, at this stage of the transport the correct forms and/or import into electronic hospital systems with clear assignments of the requested analysis is required. Noting the stage at therapy of MRD sampling is also crucial since it may be relevant for clinical decision making (for example after second course of therapy) and should therefore be defined clearly. The use of mock data (such as for instance January 1 per year of birth) increases the risk of mixing up patients or analyses. If required by law, an alternative anonymized way of identification should be used.
All specimens for immunophenotyping should be processed preferentially within 24 h of collection. Although not recommendable, bone marrow and peripheral blood samples can still be processed and analyzed when kept up to 72 h at ambient temperature. In addition, all handlings with the material can best be performed under sterile conditions, so further cryopreservation of cells in (local) biobanks remains relevant: many clinical studies have additional analyses to further investigate leukemia cells with respect to molecular, immuno-phenotypic, and functional features to be performed at a later stage. However details of biobanking are not within the scope of this manuscript.
Using MRD as a diagnostic tool implies that it needs an accredited laboratory, not only for flow cytometry, but also regarding quality control of MRD assessment. This may require distributing samples to specific reference laboratories or (re)analyzing flow files with the MRD measurements by reference teams.
This article describes the most important actions from bone marrow aspirate collection to determination of MRD in clinical samples - requiring an entire team of experts with specific tasks, responsibilities, and with frequent communication for effective characterization and analysis. Since each task is crucial to the procedure, it is recommended to have sound logistics including protocols at each laboratory and sufficient back-up personnel who have been specifically trained for the task. In addition, since there are some relatively subjective steps in part of the procedures (especially LAIP and LSC aberrant marker identification), it is essential to have discussions about the final result by the team, and have the final report authorized by a team of supervisors. Current efforts are pursuing computer software development that will help standardize the (LAIP and LSC) MRD analysis.
Modification and troubleshooting
Each lab can have its own set of antibodies that can be used to define the different subpopulations although having a standardized backbone of markers is essential for comparable results, as outlined in the ELN state of the art guidelines for MRD measurements document referred to above. Irrespective of the chosen markers there are some issues that can make the analysis of the results difficult and need to be taken into consideration.
Limitations of the technique
The identification of LAIP and LSC aberrant marker expression is first assessed at diagnosis and monitored over time (during and after therapy) for accurate characterization of the MRD phenotype. While over 95% of the patients can be evaluated via LAIP or LSC (or both), still some patients have no defined LAIPs or no CD34+CD38- LSCs or present with CD34 negative blasts, or have a missing diagnosis sample. In these cases, it is still worthwhile to try and measure MRD with a panel of antibodies as broad as the number of available cells allows and then select the most reliable (giving the strongest distinction of leukemic cells) LAIP. Considering that a proportion of patients who do ultimately relapse do not completely resemble the diagnosis immunophenotype, due to the heterogeneity of AML disease, measuring a broad panel of antibodies at MRD is recommended anyhow. These immunophenotypic shifts include blast cells and LSCs and have been shown to occur during therapy16 and the measureable disease may be based on these so-called upcoming populations. At this time however, it has not been determined whether all immunophenotypic sub-populations will lead to disease relapse, and is therefore not common practice to report MRD tailored-therapy based on these cells in clinical trials. It is important to note that the risk of missing LSC due to population shifts is reduced by the one tube approach in which the most important aberrancy defining markers are in one flow cytometry (PE) channel14.
Significance with respect to existing methods
The method described in this protocol relies on the definition of one or more LAIPs, which cells are followed during therapy. A disadvantage of this method is that it has been recently shown that LAIP may change during therapy. This way some upcoming populations with different aberrant markers may be missed. To circumvent this, it would be best to measure all aberrant markers instead of only those found at diagnosis. This would then be similar to the "different from normal" approach that is used by several laboratories17.
Future applications
Recently, MRD has received extra attention for novel clinical trial design. In the era of specialized treatment options and targeted drug therapy, the use of MRD as an outcome measure will reduce the time needed to establish clinical efficacy of novel treatments, ultimately allowing faster introduction of urgently needed therapeutic options into the clinic. The significance of appropriate logistics and practical execution of a harmonized MRD assessment are crucial to future AML treatment success as the FDA is currently investigating the feasibility of using MRD as a surrogate endpoint instead of overall survival measures18.