During the last decades hematologists have excelled at improving and refining the classification, diagnosis, and thus ultimately the therapeutic decision-making process for their patients. This continuous evolution proceeded in parallel to seminal discoveries in basic science such as FISH, PCR and NGS. So far, the current WHO classification serves as reference to diagnostic decision making and is largely based on 5 diagnostic pillars: cytomorphology of peripheral blood and/or bone marrow smears, histology and immunohistochemistry of bone marrow trephine biopsies or lymph nodes, immunophenotyping, chromosome banding analysis supplemented by FISH analysis, molecular genetics including PCR and targeted panel sequencing via NGS. This leads to a swift diagnosis in 90 % of all cases. The leftover 10 % remain a challenge for hematopathologists and clinicians alike and are resolved through interdisciplinary teams in the context of specialized boards. With the advent of high throughput sequencing (mainly WGS and WTS) the possibility of a comprehensive and detailed portrait of the genetic alterations - specifically in challenging cases - has become a realistic alternative to classical methods. In SIRIUS the investigators will prospectively challenge this hypothesis to address the question of how often a better or final diagnosis can be delivered by WGS and/or WTS and if unclear cases can be efficiently resolved.
1. Background and Rationale Treatment of hematological diseases relies on a single cardinal prerequisite: correct classification within the broad specter of malignant diseases arising from the hematopoietic system. With the ever-expanding availability of distinct yet complementary diagnostic tools, our understanding of the landscape of hematological diseases steadily increases. As such, the current consensus classification as summarized through the WHO classification (2017) represents a compass guiding diagnostic algorithms to the correct diagnosis. Today, the gold standard of routine diagnostic process relies on five methodological pillars: cytomorphology, histology, chromosomal cytogenetics, immunophenotyping, and molecular genetic testing. This leads to a treatment enabling diagnosis in the vast majority of cases. However, approximately 10 % of cases remain unresolved from a diagnostic point of view and hence do not lead to a satisfactory diagnosis according to current WHO standards (2017). The investigators intend to solve this issue to provide illuminating diagnostic guidance for the best possible patient´s care. 2. Objectives To address this problem, the investigators hypothesize that novel high throughput sequencing methods, e.g., whole genome and/or whole transcriptome sequencing are able - by virtue of painting a more delicate genetic portrait of a tumor sample - to provide a more accurate diagnosis. To this end the investigators generated a reference collection of 5,500 samples with the full spectrum of hematological malignancies, for which the investigators performed whole-genome sequencing as well as whole-transcriptome sequencing. Moreover, gold standard diagnoses according to WHO classification with all needed techniques, all performed in MLL, clinical data and therapy response data are fully available for these cases. The main advantage of this reference collection consists of the unambiguity of each diagnosis, providing a reference framework for any further classification and diagnosis especially in difficult cases. Therefore, SIRIUS will compare the diagnostic superiority of WGS or WTS to the combined approach with gold standard results and by matching the obtained results to the nearest "digital sibling" within our reference cohort of more than 5,500 WGS and WTS (both in 93% of cases). To this end, the investigators will use an inhouse developed matching algorithm, which is able to match genomic or transcriptomic profiles to a group of similar cases and gold standard results from timepoint of this study. Current workflows intended to generate WTS/WGS data from patient samples - all while fulfilling state of the art accreditation (ISO 15189) - require up to 5 - 7 days. This is largely comparable to classical methods but holds the promise to replace error prone and arduous iterations in the methodological work up. The objective is to test whether WTS and/or WGS based approaches can surpass classical methods regarding diagnostic precision and routine reliability. Here the investigators will test this hypothesis in a prospective real-world setting under diagnostically difficult circumstances.
Study Type
OBSERVATIONAL
Enrollment
100
NON-Interventional Observation only study comparing sequencing-only approaches to classical diagnostic methods
MLL Munich Leukemia Laboratory
Munich, Germany
RECRUITINGsequencing only versus gold standard diagnosis
The primary endpoint will be assessed as follows: unclear cases will be subjected to three diagnostic algorithms: 1. Inhouse at referring site by histopathological diagnosis in the context of a hematological tumor board according to current standards 2. Current gold-standard diagnostic workup as performed routinely by the MLL 3. WGS and WTS sequencing plus matching to nearest digital sibling in 5,5k cohort We will compare the accuracy for approach #3 for each patient/case by comparing the sequencing results with the therapy guiding approach in domo and Current gold-standard diagnostic workup as performed routinely by the MLL. Accuracy and overlap or discordance will be measured in percentage (%) of total cohort. Time Frame of Outcome: At diagnosis for each case/patient throughout the complete duration of study for approximately 1 year.
Time frame: Time Frame of Outcome: At diagnosis for each case/patient throughout the complete duration of study for approximately 1 year.
turnaround time
Turnaround time until potential therapy guiding diagnosis will be measure and compared in days.
Time frame: The time frame will be consisting of an assessment at diagnosis for next 14 days per case/patient.
actionable targets
The number of potential actionable targets will be determined for each case. We will assess this number in absolute numbers for each patient and for which a therapy has been approved but identification was missed in during classical gold standard diagnosis.
Time frame: This outcome will be measured one year after diagnosis. (1 year after diagnosis)
disease stage
We will Identify the putative disease stage based on sequencing only approaches in comparison to normal gold standard diagnosis as well as clinical history. Results will be denoted as percentage (%) of correctly classified cases.
Time frame: This outcome will be measured one year after diagnosis. (1 year after diagnosis)
Micro-cost analysis
We will measure all costs for respective assays and personnel to finally compare workflows 2 and 3 (see primary outcome 1.).
Time frame: The estimated timeframe for this outcome will be the timepoint of diagnosis for each patient (approximately 5 days)
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.