H396P mutation in chronic myeloid leukaemia patient on nilotinib - A case report

INTRODUCTION

The advent of BCR-ABL1-targeted therapy with the tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), for example, imatinib and nilotinib, marked a turning point in the therapy of chronic myeloid leukaemia (CML). However, a substantial proportion of patients experience primary or secondary disease resistance to TKI. There are multifactorial causes contributing to the treatment failure of which BCR-ABL1 kinase domain mutation being the most common. Here, we describe a case of a CML patient with H396P mutation following treatment with nilotinib.

CASE

A 60-year-old woman presented with abdominal discomfort and hyperleukocytosis. She was diagnosed as CML in the chronic phase with positive BCR-ABL1 transcripts. Due to the failure to obtain an optimal response with imatinib treatment, it was switched to nilotinib. She responded well to nilotinib initially and achieved complete haematological and cytogenetic responses, with undetectable BCR-ABL1 transcripts. However, in 4 years she developed molecular relapse. Mutation analysis which was done 70 months after commencement of nilotinib showed the presence of BCRABL1 kinase domain mutation with nucleotide substitution at position 1187 from Histidine(H) to Proline(P) (H396P). Currently, she is on nilotinib 400mg twice daily. Her latest molecular analysis showed the presence of residual BCR-ABL1 transcripts at 0.22%.

DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION

This case illustrates the importance of BCR-ABL1 mutation analysis in CML patients with persistent BCR-ABL1 positivity in spite of treatment. Early detection and identification of the type of BCRABL1 mutation are important to guide appropriate treatment options as different mutation will have different sensitivity to TKI.

FISH versus real-time quantitative PCR for monitoring of minimal residual disease in chronic myeloid leukaemia patients on tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy

INTRODUCTION

BCR-ABL fusion gene, the oncogenic driver of CML, results from a translocation between short arms of chromosome 9 and 22. Monitoring of CML patients during treatment is essential, not only for tailoring the treatment but also to detect early relapse to enable timely intervention. Commonly used methods for detection of residual disease are conventional karyotyping, FISH and molecular methods. In this study, we compared FISH with QRT-PCR for detection of residual disease in CML.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

CML patients on tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) therapy and on regular follow up at University Kebangsaan Malaysia Medical Center (UKMMC) were selected. A comparative study was conducted between FISH and QRT-PCR for BCR-ABL transcripts at diagnosis and during follow-up.

RESULTS

There was good correlation between FISH and QRT-PCR for BCR-ABL. At 6th month of follow-up post diagnosis, FISH had a sensitivity of 83.3% and specificity of 65.2% (k >0.339, p<0.033). At 12th month, the sensitivity of FISH was 83% and the specificity was 59.1% (k >0.286, p <0.065). Similarly, at the 24th month, FISH had a sensitivity of 100% and specificity of 68.8% (k >0.642, p<0.000).

DISCUSSION

Early achievement of major molecular response (MMR) and complete cytogenetic remission (CCyR) were reliable predictors of long-term maintenance of molecular remission.