Plasma protein biomarker profiling reveals major differences between acute leukaemia, lymphoma patients and controls.

Aiming to accommodate the unmet need for easily accessible biomarkers with a focus on biological differences between haematological diseases, the diagnostic value of plasma proteins in acute leukaemias and lymphomas was investigated. A multiplex proximity extension assay (PEA) was used to analyze 183 proteins in diagnostic plasma samples from 251 acute leukaemia and lymphoma patients and compared with samples from 60 healthy controls. Multivariate modelling using partial least square discriminant analysis revealed highly significant differences between distinct disease subgroups and controls. The model allowed explicit distinction between leukaemia and lymphoma, with few patients misclassified. Acute leukaemia samples had higher levels of proteins associated with haemostasis, inflammation, cell differentiation and cell-matrix integration, whereas lymphoma samples demonstrated higher levels of proteins known to be associated with tumour microenvironment and lymphoma dissemination. PEA technology can be used to screen for large number of plasma protein biomarkers in low µL sample volumes, enabling the distinction between controls, acute leukaemias and lymphomas. Plasma protein profiling could help gain insights into the pathophysiology of acute leukaemia and lymphoma and the technique may be a valuable tool in the diagnosis of these diseases.

Introducing patient-reported outcome in the acute leukemia quality registries in Sweden.

OBJECTIVES: The use of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measured outside clinical trials is not well defined. We report the first analysis of the prospective PRO study within the Swedish acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and the acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) registries. METHODS: PRO was requested 6 months after diagnosis. The EORTC Quality of life Questionnaire Core 30-item, the Patient Health Questionnaire-8 (PHQ-8), and questions from a Swedish National Cancer Questionnaire were used. RESULTS: An invitation letter was sent to 398 patients; 255 (64%) responded, 60% web-based, and 40% on paper. The ALL cohort had lower physical, role and social functioning, higher symptom burden, and more financial difficulties compared to the AML cohort. A PHQ-8 score ≥ 10p, which indicates depression, was reported in 18% of the patients; 33% of these patients reported being prescribed antidepressants. The patients' overall experience of care was satisfying, but more psychological and practical support was desired. There was no difference in survival between patients who reported their PRO and those who did not. Follow-up at 2 and 4 years is ongoing. CONCLUSIONS: PRO collected in a registry-based setting is feasible, but the selection of time points and questionnaires are delicate in a diverse patient population.