MedElevator
Войти в исследования Clinical chemistry · 2016
RT-qPCR and RT-Digital PCR: A Comparison of Different Platforms for the Evaluation of Residual Disease in Chronic Myeloid Leukemia.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Alikian Mary, Whale Alexandra S, Akiki Susanna, Piechocki Kim, Torrado Celia, Myint Thet, Cowen Simon, Griffiths Michael, Reid Alistair G, Apperley Jane, White Helen, Huggett Jim F, Foroni Letizia
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) are the cornerstone of successful clinical management of patients with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML). Quantitative monitoring of the percentage of the fusion transcript BCR-ABL1 (breakpoint cluster region-c-abl oncogene 1, non-receptor tyrosine kinase) BCR-ABL1IS (%BCR-ABL1IS) by reverse transcription-quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR) is the gold standard strategy for evaluating patient response to TKIs and classification into prognostic subgroups. However, this approach can be challenging to perform in a reproducible manner. Reverse-transcription digital PCR (RT-dPCR) is an adaptation of this method that could provide the robust and standardized workflow needed for truly standardized patient stratification.
METHODS: BCR-ABL1 and ABL1 transcript copy numbers were quantified in a total of 102 samples; 70 CML patients undergoing TKI therapy and 32 non-CML individuals. 3 commercially available digital PCR platforms (QS3D, QX200 and Raindrop) were compared with the platform routinely used in the clinic for RT-qPCR using the EAC (Europe Against Cancer) assay.
RESULTS: Measurements on all instruments correlated well when the %BCR-ABL1IS was ≥0.1%. In patients with residual disease below this level, greater variations were measured both within and between instruments limiting comparable performance to a 4 log dynamic range.
CONCLUSIONS: RT-dPCR was able to quantify low-level BCR-ABL1 transcript copies but was unable to improve sensitivity below the level of detection achieved by RT-qPCR. However, RT-dPCR was able to perform these sensitive measurements without use of a calibration curve. Adaptions to the protocol to increase the amount of RNA measured are likely to be necessary to improve the analytical sensitivity of BCR-ABL testing on a dPCR platform.
METHODS: BCR-ABL1 and ABL1 transcript copy numbers were quantified in a total of 102 samples; 70 CML patients undergoing TKI therapy and 32 non-CML individuals. 3 commercially available digital PCR platforms (QS3D, QX200 and Raindrop) were compared with the platform routinely used in the clinic for RT-qPCR using the EAC (Europe Against Cancer) assay.
RESULTS: Measurements on all instruments correlated well when the %BCR-ABL1IS was ≥0.1%. In patients with residual disease below this level, greater variations were measured both within and between instruments limiting comparable performance to a 4 log dynamic range.
CONCLUSIONS: RT-dPCR was able to quantify low-level BCR-ABL1 transcript copies but was unable to improve sensitivity below the level of detection achieved by RT-qPCR. However, RT-dPCR was able to perform these sensitive measurements without use of a calibration curve. Adaptions to the protocol to increase the amount of RNA measured are likely to be necessary to improve the analytical sensitivity of BCR-ABL testing on a dPCR platform.