Imperial College London
Alternate

Mary Alikian

Faculty of Medicine, National Heart & Lung Institute

Honorary Lecturer
 
 
 
//

Contact

 

m.alikian

 
 
//

Location

 

Hammersmith HospitalHammersmith Campus

//

Summary

 

Publications

Citation

BibTex format

@article{Alikian:2017:10.1373/clinchem.2016.262824,
author = {Alikian, M and Whale, AS and Akiki, S and Piechocki, K and Torrado, C and Myint, T and Cowen, S and Griffiths, M and Reid, AG and Apperley, J and White, H and Huggett, JF and Foroni, L},
doi = {10.1373/clinchem.2016.262824},
journal = {Clinical Chemistry},
pages = {525--531},
title = {RT-qPCR and RT-Digital PCR: a comparison of different platforms for the evaluation of residual disease in chronic myeloid leukemia},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1373/clinchem.2016.262824},
volume = {63},
year = {2017}
}
Download

RIS format (EndNote, RefMan)

TY  - JOUR
AB  - 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.
AU  - Alikian,M
AU  - Whale,AS
AU  - Akiki,S
AU  - Piechocki,K
AU  - Torrado,C
AU  - Myint,T
AU  - Cowen,S
AU  - Griffiths,M
AU  - Reid,AG
AU  - Apperley,J
AU  - White,H
AU  - Huggett,JF
AU  - Foroni,L
DO  - 10.1373/clinchem.2016.262824
EP  - 531
PY  - 2017///
SN  - 1530-8561
SP  - 525
TI  - RT-qPCR and RT-Digital PCR: a comparison of different platforms for the evaluation of residual disease in chronic myeloid leukemia
T2  - Clinical Chemistry
UR  - http://dx.doi.org/10.1373/clinchem.2016.262824
UR  - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27979961
UR  - http://hdl.handle.net/10044/1/43780
VL  - 63
ER  -
Download