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.

Ruxolitinib in combination with prednisone and nilotinib exhibit synergistic effects in human cells lines and primary cells from myeloproliferative neoplasms.

Ruxolitinib is the front-line non-palliative treatment for myelofibrosis (MF). However, a significant number of patients lose or present suboptimal response, are resistant or have unacceptable toxicity. In an attempt to improve response and avoid the adverse effects of this drug, we evaluated the combination of 17 drugs with ruxolitinib in ex vivo models of peripheral blood mononuclear cells from MF patients and cell lines. We found that the combination ruxolitinib and nilotinib had a synergistic effect against MF cells (ΔEC50 nilotinib, -21.6%). Moreover, the addition of prednisone to combined ruxolitinib/nilotinib improved the synergistic effect in all MF samples studied. We evaluated the molecular mechanisms of combined ruxolitinib/nilotinib/prednisone and observed inhibition of JAK/STAT (STAT5, 69.2+11.8% inhibition) and MAPK (ERK, 29.4+4.5% inhibition) signaling pathways. Furthermore, we found that the triple therapy combination inhibited collagen protein and COL1A1 gene expression in human bone marrow mesenchymal cells. Taken together, we provide evidence that combined ruxolitinib/nilotinib/prednisone is a potential therapy for MF, possibly through the anti-fibrotic effect of nilotinib, the immunomodulatory effect of ruxolitinib and prednisone, and the anti-proliferative effect of ruxolitinib. This combination will be further investigated in a phase Ib/II clinical trial in MF.