Impact of BCR::ABL1 transcript type on RT-qPCR amplification performance and molecular response to therapy
Author:
Salmon Matthew, White Helen E., Zizkova Hana, Gottschalk Andrea, Motlova Eliska, Cerveira Nuno, Colomer DolorsORCID, Coriu Daniel, Franke Georg N.ORCID, Gottardi Enrico, Izzo BarbaraORCID, Jurcek Tomas, Lion Thomas, Schäfer Vivien, Venturi Claudia, Vigneri Paolo, Zawada Magdalena, Zuna JanORCID, Hovorkova LenkaORCID, Koblihova Jitka, Klamova Hana, Markova Marketa Stastna, Srbova Dana, Benesova Adela, Polivkova Vaclava, Zackova Daniela, Mayer Jiri, Roeder IngoORCID, Glauche IngmarORCID, Ernst ThomasORCID, Hochhaus AndreasORCID, Polakova Katerina MachovaORCID, Cross Nicholas C. P.ORCID
Abstract
AbstractSeveral studies have reported that chronic myeloid leukaemia (CML) patients expressing e14a2 BCR::ABL1 have a faster molecular response to therapy compared to patients expressing e13a2. To explore the reason for this difference we undertook a detailed technical comparison of the commonly used Europe Against Cancer (EAC) BCR::ABL1 reverse transcriptase quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) assay in European Treatment and Outcome Study (EUTOS) reference laboratories (n = 10). We found the amplification ratio of the e13a2 amplicon was 38% greater than e14a2 (p = 0.015), and the amplification efficiency was 2% greater (P = 0.17). This subtle difference led to measurable transcript-type dependent variation in estimates of residual disease which could be corrected by (i) taking the qPCR amplification efficiency into account, (ii) using alternative RT-qPCR approaches or (iii) droplet digital PCR (ddPCR), a technique which is relatively insensitive to differences in amplification kinetics. In CML patients, higher levels of BCR::ABL1/GUSB were identified at diagnosis for patients expressing e13a2 (n = 67) compared to e14a2 (n = 78) when analysed by RT-qPCR (P = 0.0005) but not ddPCR (P = 0.5). These data indicate that widely used RT-qPCR assays result in subtly different estimates of disease depending on BCR::ABL1 transcript type; these differences are small but may need to be considered for optimal patient management.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Oncology,Cancer Research,Hematology
Reference40 articles.
1. Chereda B, Melo JV. Natural course and biology of CML. Ann Hematol. 2015;94:107–21. 2. Baccarani M, Castagnetti F, Gugliotta G, Rosti G, Soverini S, Albeer A, et al. The proportion of different BCR-ABL1 transcript types in chronic myeloid leukemia. An international overview. Leukemia. 2019;33:1173–83. 3. Melo JV. The diversity of BCR-ABL fusion proteins and their relationship to leukemia phenotype. Blood 1996;88:2375–84. 4. Schäfer V, White HE, Gerrard G, Möbius S, Saussele S, Franke G-N, et al. Assessment of individual molecular response in chronic myeloid leukemia patients with atypical BCR-ABL1 fusion transcripts: recommendations by the EUTOS cooperative network. J cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2021;147:3081–9. 5. Ross D, O’Hely M, Bartley P, Dang P, Score J, Goyne J, et al. Distribution of genomic breakpoints in chronic myeloid leukemia: analysis of 308 patients. Leukemia. 2013;27:2105–7.
Cited by
8 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
|
|