2021
DOI: 10.1097/hs9.0000000000000624
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Diagnostic Next-generation Sequencing Frequently Fails to Detect MYD88L265P in Waldenström Macroglobulinemia

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
8
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 17 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 25 publications
0
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…A recent study demonstrated that in unselected BM samples, AS-qPCR was superior in detecting CXCR4 S338X compared to amplicon massively parallel sequencing (MPS) (63% vs. 16%) [92]. Additionally, sensitivity of both methods was higher for MYD88 L265P detection (98% and 69% respectively), confirming the subclonal nature of CXCR4 S338X but also indicating a direct dependence of MPS performance on the level of BM involvement [58,67,92].…”
Section: Referencementioning
confidence: 93%
“…A recent study demonstrated that in unselected BM samples, AS-qPCR was superior in detecting CXCR4 S338X compared to amplicon massively parallel sequencing (MPS) (63% vs. 16%) [92]. Additionally, sensitivity of both methods was higher for MYD88 L265P detection (98% and 69% respectively), confirming the subclonal nature of CXCR4 S338X but also indicating a direct dependence of MPS performance on the level of BM involvement [58,67,92].…”
Section: Referencementioning
confidence: 93%
“…It is important to note, however, that there are substantial differences between the techniques used in prospective clinical trials for MYD88 and CXCR4 mutational testing, which can substantially impact the detection rate of these mutations, making the interpretation of the results across studies challenging. 33,34 Ibrutinib (with and without rituximab) and zanubrutinib are safe, effective, and reasonable treatment options for patients with WM. The longer experience and ease of administration with ibrutinib would need to be counterbalanced against the favorable side effect profile of zanubrutinib.…”
Section: How Do We Choose Between Ibrutinib and Zanubrutinib In Wm?mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There was a low rate of AF in single‐arm studies with tirabrutinib and orelabrutinib 39,42 . A preclinical study in mice showed that exposure to ibrutinib, but not acalabrutinib, induced AF, left atrial enlargement, myocardial fibrosis, and inflammation 33,43 . C‐terminal Src kinase (Csk) was the strongest candidate for ibrutinib‐induced AF, and cardiac‐specific Csk knockouts induced a similar phenotype to ibrutinib exposure.…”
Section: Selected Management Issuesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There is no definitive evidence from prospective clinical trials that the MYD88 or CXCR4 status is predictive of response to chemoimmunotherapy regimens, although this is complicated by the small numbers of patients in subgroups and also the different methods of assessment which can lead to different sensitivities of detection. 109,110 Prospective data from the US have demonstrated that in patients treated with ibrutinib for relapsed and refractory WM, those with MYD88 L265P CXCR4 WT had more responses than those with MYD88 L265P CXCR4 warts, hypogammaglobu linaemia, imm uno defici ency, myelokathexis (WHIM) (97% vs. 68%, p < 0.0001) with no major responses seen in the four patients who were wild-type for both genes. 28 Furthermore, there was a suggestion that in the patients with a CXCR4 mutation, nonsense mutations were associated with a poorer outcome.…”
Section: Considerations For Choice Of Therapymentioning
confidence: 99%