Back

Measurement of Bone Marrow Tumour Burden and Minimal Residual Disease in Waldenstrom's Macroglobulinemia through Cell-free Whole Genome Sequencing

Chow, S.; Abelman, D. D.; Danesh, A.; Pedersen, S.; Nong-Wei, E.; Scott, D. S.; Suleman, A.; Roos, K.; Chen, C. I.; Berinstein, N.; Trudel, S.; Pugh, T. J.

2025-05-14 hematology
10.1101/2025.05.11.25326925 medRxiv
Show abstract

PurposeWe assessed the utility of blood cell-free DNA (cfDNA) whole genome sequencing (cfWGS) for minimal residual disease (MRD) monitoring in Waldenstroms macroglobulinemia (WM) by comparing this to 1) targeted panel sequencing of 27 genes of interest in WM and targeted capture of immunoglobulin gene rearrangements in blood and bone marrow 2) Multiplex-PCR of immunoglobulin loci followed by Illumina sequencing (clonoSEQ). Experimental designSamples were collected from 7 patients on a clinical trial who were treated uniformly with chemoimmunotherapy and Brutons Tyrosine Kinase inhibitor (BTKi). Samples were collected prior to starting treatment and at clinical timepoints up to 18 months. MRD detection technologies were compared across all timepoints. ResultscfWGS was superior to both in-house targeted panel sequencing on cfDNA and clinical NGS in peripheral blood (PB) cells, using clinical bone marrow (BM) NGS as a standard. Tumor burden measured by cfWGS reflected MRD counts by clonoSEQ in BM. ConclusionscfWGS may be a valuable non-invasive alternative to bone marrow testing in WM patients who require close follow up and provides greater sensitivity than targeted panel sequencing of cfDNA. Statement of Translational RelevanceWhole-genome sequencing in cell-free DNA (cfWGS) is a highly sensitive marker of minimal residual disease that has application as a biomarker in clinical trials. cfWGS more accurately reflects bone marrow tumor burden than other available non-invasive measures to date. Further exploration is warranted to determine its full potential for use in cancer diagnostics and research.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
British Journal of Haematology
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
23.1%
2
npj Precision Oncology
48 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
14.7%
3
Blood Advances
54 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
10.3%
4
The Journal of Molecular Diagnostics
36 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
5.0%
50% of probability mass above
5
Leukemia
39 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
5.0%
6
Blood
67 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
2.7%
7
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 47%
2.1%
8
Molecular Oncology
50 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.9%
9
JCI Insight
241 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.9%
10
Cancers
200 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.8%
11
Clinical Chemistry
22 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.7%
12
Diagnostics
48 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
1.7%
13
Blood Cancer Journal
11 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.4%
14
Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM)
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.3%
15
Cancer Medicine
24 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
16
Clinical Infectious Diseases
231 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
17
Transplantation
13 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.9%
18
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 55%
0.8%
19
Frontiers in Oncology
95 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.8%
20
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 74%
0.8%
21
Frontiers in Immunology
586 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.8%
22
Cell Reports Medicine
140 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.8%
23
JCO Precision Oncology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.7%
24
International Journal of Cancer
42 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
25
Molecular Cancer Therapeutics
33 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.7%
26
Cytometry Part A
30 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.7%
27
Gastroenterology
40 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
28
Epigenetics
43 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
29
Acta Neuropathologica Communications
81 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
30
Clinical Cancer Research
58 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%