Search

Minimal residual disease (MRD) is a powerful prognostic factor in acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) and is used for patient stratification and treatment decisions, but its precise role in Philadelphia chromosome positive ALL is less clear. This uncertainty results largely from methodological differences relating to the use of real-time quantitative PCR (qRT-PCR) to measure BCR-ABL1transcript levels for MRD analysis. We here describe the first results by the EURO-MRD consortium on standardization of qRT-PCR for the e1a2 BCR-ABL1transcript in Ph + ALL, designed to overcome the lack of standardisation of laboratory procedures and data interpretation. Standardised use of EAC primer/probe sets and of centrally prepared plasmid standards had the greatest impact on reducing interlaboratory variability. In QC1 the proportion of analyses with BCR-ABL1/ABL1ratios within half a log difference were 40/67 (60%) and 52/67 (78%) at 10−3and 36/67 (53%) and 53/67 (79%) at 10−4BCR-ABL1/ABL1. Standardized RNA extraction, cDNA synthesis and cycler platforms did not improve results further, whereas stringent application of technical criteria for assay quality and uniform criteria for data interpretation and reporting were essential. We provide detailed laboratory recommendations for the standardized MRD analysis in routine diagnostic settings and in multicenter clinical trials for Ph + ALL.

Molecular monitoring of chronic myeloid leukemia patients using robust BCR-ABL1 tests standardized to the International Scale (IS) is key to proper disease management, especially when treatment cessation is considered. Most laboratories currently use a time-consuming sample exchange process with reference laboratories for IS calibration. A World Health Organization (WHO) BCR-ABL1 reference panel was developed (MR1–MR4), but access to the material is limited. In this study, we describe the development of the first cell-based secondary reference panel that is traceable to and faithfully replicates the WHO panel, with an additional MR4.5level. The secondary panel was calibrated to IS using digital PCR with ABL1, BCR and GUSB as reference genes and evaluated by 44 laboratories worldwide. Interestingly, we found that >40% of BCR-ABL1 assays showed signs of inadequate optimization such as poor linearity and suboptimal PCR efficiency. Nonetheless, when optimized sample inputs were used, >60% demonstrated satisfactory IS accuracy, precision and/or MR4.5sensitivity, and 58% obtained IS conversion factors from the secondary reference concordant with their current values. Correlation analysis indicated no significant alterations in %BCR-ABL1 results caused by different assay configurations. More assays achieved good precision and/or sensitivity than IS accuracy, indicating the need for better IS calibration mechanisms.

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via a link at the top of the paper.