Inflammatory Cells in Atypical Eruption of Lymphocyte Recovery Carry the Same Mutations as Neoplastic Myeloid Cells.

Cutaneous eruption of lymphocyte recovery (ELR) during bone marrow (BM) aplasia recovery after intensive chemotherapy has been reported in very few patients. The presence of skin rashes in patients with acute leukemia who are undergoing intensive chemotherapy and BM transplantation is a diagnostic challenge because of the clinical similarity between drug eruptions, infiltrates related to the relapse of the underlying disease, cutaneous graft-versus-host disease, and ELR. IDH1 mutations have been identified as a recurrent genetic anomaly in acute myeloid leukemia and myelodysplastic syndromes. However, until now, this IDH1 mutation has not been reported as being shared by myeloid cells and non-neoplastic inflammatory cells in this clinical setting. Here, we present the rare case of a woman diagnosed with myelodysplastic syndrome that evolved into an acute myelogenous leukemia with leukemic cutaneous infiltrate. The patient developed ELR after the intensive chemotherapy administered before BM transplantation. The IDH1 mutation was identified in BM cells and in myeloid and inflammatory cells in skin biopsies before allogeneic BM transplantation. We discuss the main aspects of the differential diagnosis of these cutaneous reactions in leukemic patients and the biological significance of the IDH1 mutation.

Comparison of Droplet Digital PCR versus qPCR Measurements on the International Scale for the Molecular Monitoring of Chronic Myeloid Leukemia Patients.

BACKGROUND: BCR-ABL1/ABL1 p210 measurement by quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) is used worldwide to monitor the molecular response in chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) patients. Droplet digital polymerase chain reaction (ddPCR) seems to show a greater sensitivity than qPCR, probably due to the high number of replicates analyzed in ddPCR for the comparison. Additionally, in a recently published comparison, ddPCR measurements were not adequately transformed into International Scale (IS). METHOD: We have analyzed 50 CML patients and ten non-CML donors in parallel by qPCR and ddPCR. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study comparing both techniques under similar conditions, with BCR-ABL1/ABL1 measurements performed via both techniques transformed into IS. RESULTS: Qualitative and quantitative comparisons showed excellent results. The qualitative correlation showed a Kappa index of 0.94 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.90-0.98) (P < 0.001). In the quantitative comparison, the absolute intra-class correlation coefficient was 0.868 (95% CI 0.734-0.937; P < 0.001), and Lin's concordance correlation coefficient was 0.863. The Passing-Bablock test indicated a slight proportional difference between qPCR and ddPCR. A quantitative and qualitative subanalysis including 40 patients with a molecular response of 3.0 or deeper showed similar results in every test. In addition, the proportional difference in the Passing-Bablock test disappeared. There were no differences in the sensitivity for BCR-ABL1 detection between qPCR and ddPCR (McNemar test, P = 0.5). CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, our results show very good quantitative and qualitative correlations between BCR-ABL1/ABL1 p210 results obtained by qPCR and by ddPCR and confirm previous scarce data regarding the lack of an increase in sensitivity of ddPCR over qPCR in this setting.