Repository logo
  • Log In
    Log in via Symplectic to deposit your publication(s).
Repository logo
  • About
  • Communities & Collections
  • Advanced Search
  • Statistics
  • Log In
    Log in via Symplectic to deposit your publication(s).
  1. Home
  2. Faculty of Medicine
  3. Faculty of Medicine
  4. RT-qPCR and RT-Digital PCR: a comparison of different platforms for the evaluation of residual disease in chronic myeloid leukemia
 
  • Details
RT-qPCR and RT-Digital PCR: a comparison of different platforms for the evaluation of residual disease in chronic myeloid leukemia
File(s)
262824_Proof.pdf (954.69 KB)
Accepted version
Author(s)
Alikian, M
Whale, AS
Akiki, S
Piechocki, K
Torrado, C
more
Type
Journal Article
Abstract
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 BCR, RhoGEF, and GTPase activating protein-ABL proto-oncogene 1, non-receptor tyrosine kinase fusion transcript BCR-ABL1(IS) (%BCR-ABL1(IS)) 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-ABL1(IS) 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.
Date Issued
2017-01-27
Date Acceptance
2016-11-09
Citation
Clinical Chemistry, 2017, 63 (2), pp.525-531
URI
http://hdl.handle.net/10044/1/43780
DOI
https://www.dx.doi.org/10.1373/clinchem.2016.262824
ISSN
1530-8561
Publisher
American Association for Clinical Chemistry
Start Page
525
End Page
531
Journal / Book Title
Clinical Chemistry
Volume
63
Issue
2
Copyright Statement
© 2016 American Association for Clinical Chemistry
Sponsor
Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust- BRC Funding
National Institute for Health Research
CANCER RESEARCH UK
Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust
Identifier
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27979961
PII: clinchem.2016.262824
Grant Number
RDB05 79560
NF-SI-0611-10275
JXR11127
IPH-RMO-HH/004
Subjects
General Clinical Medicine
1004 Medical Biotechnology
1101 Medical Biochemistry And Metabolomics
1103 Clinical Sciences
Publication Status
Published
Coverage Spatial
United States
About
Spiral Depositing with Spiral Publishing with Spiral Symplectic
Contact us
Open access team Report an issue
Other Services
Scholarly Communications Library Services
logo

Imperial College London

South Kensington Campus

London SW7 2AZ, UK

tel: +44 (0)20 7589 5111

Accessibility Modern slavery statement Cookie Policy

Built with DSpace-CRIS software - Extension maintained and optimized by 4Science

  • Cookie settings
  • Privacy policy
  • End User Agreement
  • Send Feedback