PetCaseFinder

Peer-reviewed veterinary case report

Detecting leftover lymphoma in dogs after treatment using blood

By Aresu, Luca et al.·Published in Veterinary journal (London, England : 1997)·2014·Department of Comparative Biomedicine and Food Science, Italy·View original on PubMed

PetCaseFinder translated the abstract of this peer-reviewed paper into plain English so pet owners can read it. We do not publish original research — every detail traces back to the citation above. How we work →

Original publication title: Minimal residual disease detection by flow cytometry and PARR in lymph node, peripheral blood and bone marrow, following treatment of dogs with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.

Species:
dog

Plain-English summary

Fourteen dogs with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) were treated and monitored for minimal residual disease (MRD) using two methods: flow cytometry and a genetic test called PARR. While ten of the dogs eventually relapsed, four remained in remission, showing no detectable MRD. The study found that PARR was better at predicting how long it would take for the cancer to return, while using both tests together provided the best results for understanding the dogs' overall survival. This suggests that combining these testing methods can give a clearer picture of a dog's health after treatment for lymphoma.

People also search for: dog lymphoma treatment · DLBCL in dogs · minimal residual disease detection in dogs

Abstract

The most promising techniques for detecting minimal residual disease (MRD) in canine lymphoma are flow cytometry (FC) and polymerase chain reaction amplification of antigen receptor genes (PARR). However, the agreement between these methods has not been established. MRD was monitored by FC and PARR following treatment of dogs affected with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), comparing results in lymph node (LN), peripheral blood (PB) and bone marrow (BM) samples. The prognostic impact of MRD on time to relapse (TTR) and lymphoma-specific survival (LSS) was also assessed. Fourteen dogs with previously untreated DLBCL were enrolled into the study; 10 dogs eventually relapsed, while four dogs with undetectable MRD were still in remission at the end of the study. At diagnosis, the concordance rate between FC and PARR was 100%, 78.6%, and 64.3% for LN, PB and BM, respectively. At the end of treatment, the agreement rates were 35.7%, 50%, and 57.1% for LN, PB and BM, respectively. At least one of the follow-up samples from dogs experiencing relapse was PARR(+); conversely, FC was not able to detect MRD in seven of the dogs that relapsed. PARR was more sensitive than FC in predicting TTR, whereas the combination of PARR and FC was more sensitive than either technique alone in predicting LSS using PB samples. The results suggest that immunological and molecular techniques should be used in combination when monitoring for MRD in canine DLBCL.

Find similar cases for your pet

PetCaseFinder finds other peer-reviewed reports of pets with the same symptoms, plus a plain-English summary of what was tried across them.

Search related cases →

Original publication on PubMed: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24698669/