[定量检测 BCR::ABL1 p210 转录本水平的比较:一项多中心研究]。

Q3 Medicine
C T Zhao, C R Ni, Y N Lin, X L Ma, Q S Wu, F Wang, X X Han, F Liu, Y Xu, H X Liu, J Chen, K Ru, M H Zhu
{"title":"[定量检测 BCR::ABL1 p210 转录本水平的比较:一项多中心研究]。","authors":"C T Zhao, C R Ni, Y N Lin, X L Ma, Q S Wu, F Wang, X X Han, F Liu, Y Xu, H X Liu, J Chen, K Ru, M H Zhu","doi":"10.3760/cma.j.cn112151-20240110-00024","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Objective:</b> To assess the capability of seven reference medical laboratories to detect BCR::ABL1 p210 transcription levels and to compare the results among those laboratories. <b>Methods:</b> The interlaboratory comparison was carried out in two stages. The samples were prepared by the reference laboratory. The quantitative values of BCR::ABL1 p210 of the comparison samples covered 0.001%-0.01%, 0.01%-0.1%, 0.1%-1%, 1%-10% and>10% in each stage. Real-time quantitative PCR (RT-PCR) and dPCR (digital PCR) were used to examine the samples. The conversion factor (CF) was calculated and validated for each laboratory. <b>Results:</b> In the RT-PCR comparison, one laboratory was failed to detect BCR::ABL1 p210 in fourteen samples at the first stage. The results of the other six laboratories were qualified with the bias <±1.2 folds (-0.133-0.338) and 95% limits of agreement within ±5 folds (upper limit 0.147-0.785, lower limit -0.770--0.109), and the corresponding CF values were calculated and validated. In the dPCR comparison, one laboratory did not report results at the second stage. The results of the other six laboratories were qualified with the bias <±1.2 folds (-0.026-0.267) and 95% limits of agreement within±5 folds (upper limit 0.084-0.991, lower limit -0.669--0.135), and the corresponding CF values were calculated and validated. The samples with BCR::ABL1 p210 quantitative values of 0.01%-0.1%, 0.1%-1%, 1%-10% and >10% could be detected by both RT-PCR and qPCR. When the quantitative value of BCR::ABL1 p210 was 0.001%-0.01%, the detection rate of dPCR was higher than that of RT-PCR (85.56% vs. 68.00%). <b>Conclusions:</b> A good consistency is present among various laboratories. The quantitative value of BCR::ABL1 p210 is comparable among laboratories as shown by the CF value conversion. For quantitative detection of BCR::ABL1 p210 deep molecular reaction, dPCR has a higher positive detection rate and more advantages than RT-PCR. To ensure the accuracy and reproducibility of the BCR::ABL1 p210 test, it is imperative for every laboratory to enhance their daily quality control practices.</p>","PeriodicalId":35997,"journal":{"name":"中华病理学杂志","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"[Comparison of quantitative detection of BCR::ABL1 p210 transcript levels: a multicenter study].\",\"authors\":\"C T Zhao, C R Ni, Y N Lin, X L Ma, Q S Wu, F Wang, X X Han, F Liu, Y Xu, H X Liu, J Chen, K Ru, M H Zhu\",\"doi\":\"10.3760/cma.j.cn112151-20240110-00024\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Objective:</b> To assess the capability of seven reference medical laboratories to detect BCR::ABL1 p210 transcription levels and to compare the results among those laboratories. <b>Methods:</b> The interlaboratory comparison was carried out in two stages. The samples were prepared by the reference laboratory. The quantitative values of BCR::ABL1 p210 of the comparison samples covered 0.001%-0.01%, 0.01%-0.1%, 0.1%-1%, 1%-10% and>10% in each stage. Real-time quantitative PCR (RT-PCR) and dPCR (digital PCR) were used to examine the samples. The conversion factor (CF) was calculated and validated for each laboratory. <b>Results:</b> In the RT-PCR comparison, one laboratory was failed to detect BCR::ABL1 p210 in fourteen samples at the first stage. The results of the other six laboratories were qualified with the bias <±1.2 folds (-0.133-0.338) and 95% limits of agreement within ±5 folds (upper limit 0.147-0.785, lower limit -0.770--0.109), and the corresponding CF values were calculated and validated. In the dPCR comparison, one laboratory did not report results at the second stage. The results of the other six laboratories were qualified with the bias <±1.2 folds (-0.026-0.267) and 95% limits of agreement within±5 folds (upper limit 0.084-0.991, lower limit -0.669--0.135), and the corresponding CF values were calculated and validated. The samples with BCR::ABL1 p210 quantitative values of 0.01%-0.1%, 0.1%-1%, 1%-10% and >10% could be detected by both RT-PCR and qPCR. When the quantitative value of BCR::ABL1 p210 was 0.001%-0.01%, the detection rate of dPCR was higher than that of RT-PCR (85.56% vs. 68.00%). <b>Conclusions:</b> A good consistency is present among various laboratories. The quantitative value of BCR::ABL1 p210 is comparable among laboratories as shown by the CF value conversion. For quantitative detection of BCR::ABL1 p210 deep molecular reaction, dPCR has a higher positive detection rate and more advantages than RT-PCR. To ensure the accuracy and reproducibility of the BCR::ABL1 p210 test, it is imperative for every laboratory to enhance their daily quality control practices.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":35997,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"中华病理学杂志\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"中华病理学杂志\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.cn112151-20240110-00024\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"中华病理学杂志","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.cn112151-20240110-00024","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的评估七个参考医学实验室检测 BCR::ABL1 p210 转录水平的能力,并比较这些实验室的检测结果。方法:分两个阶段进行实验室间比较:实验室间比较分两个阶段进行。样本由参考实验室制备。对比样本中 BCR::ABL1 p210 的定量值在每个阶段分别为 0.001%-0.01%、0.01%-0.1%、0.1%-1%、1%-10% 和>10%。采用实时定量 PCR(RT-PCR)和 dPCR(数字 PCR)对样品进行检测。计算并验证了每个实验室的转换因子(CF)。结果:在 RT-PCR 比较中,一家实验室未能在第一阶段检测出 14 份样本中的 BCR::ABL1 p210。其他六家实验室的结果均合格,RT-PCR 和 qPCR 均可检测到 10% 的偏差。当 BCR::ABL1 p210 的定量值为 0.001%-0.01% 时,dPCR 的检出率高于 RT-PCR(85.56% 对 68.00%)。结论不同实验室的检测结果具有良好的一致性。从CF值转换来看,各实验室对BCR::ABL1 p210的定量值具有可比性。对于 BCR::ABL1 p210 深度分子反应的定量检测,dPCR 比 RT-PCR 具有更高的阳性检出率和更多的优势。为确保 BCR::ABL1 p210 检测的准确性和可重复性,各实验室必须加强日常质量控制措施。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
[Comparison of quantitative detection of BCR::ABL1 p210 transcript levels: a multicenter study].

Objective: To assess the capability of seven reference medical laboratories to detect BCR::ABL1 p210 transcription levels and to compare the results among those laboratories. Methods: The interlaboratory comparison was carried out in two stages. The samples were prepared by the reference laboratory. The quantitative values of BCR::ABL1 p210 of the comparison samples covered 0.001%-0.01%, 0.01%-0.1%, 0.1%-1%, 1%-10% and>10% in each stage. Real-time quantitative PCR (RT-PCR) and dPCR (digital PCR) were used to examine the samples. The conversion factor (CF) was calculated and validated for each laboratory. Results: In the RT-PCR comparison, one laboratory was failed to detect BCR::ABL1 p210 in fourteen samples at the first stage. The results of the other six laboratories were qualified with the bias <±1.2 folds (-0.133-0.338) and 95% limits of agreement within ±5 folds (upper limit 0.147-0.785, lower limit -0.770--0.109), and the corresponding CF values were calculated and validated. In the dPCR comparison, one laboratory did not report results at the second stage. The results of the other six laboratories were qualified with the bias <±1.2 folds (-0.026-0.267) and 95% limits of agreement within±5 folds (upper limit 0.084-0.991, lower limit -0.669--0.135), and the corresponding CF values were calculated and validated. The samples with BCR::ABL1 p210 quantitative values of 0.01%-0.1%, 0.1%-1%, 1%-10% and >10% could be detected by both RT-PCR and qPCR. When the quantitative value of BCR::ABL1 p210 was 0.001%-0.01%, the detection rate of dPCR was higher than that of RT-PCR (85.56% vs. 68.00%). Conclusions: A good consistency is present among various laboratories. The quantitative value of BCR::ABL1 p210 is comparable among laboratories as shown by the CF value conversion. For quantitative detection of BCR::ABL1 p210 deep molecular reaction, dPCR has a higher positive detection rate and more advantages than RT-PCR. To ensure the accuracy and reproducibility of the BCR::ABL1 p210 test, it is imperative for every laboratory to enhance their daily quality control practices.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
中华病理学杂志
中华病理学杂志 Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
10377
期刊介绍:
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信