ArticleBlood cancer journal2011
Establishment of a standardized multiplex assay with the analytical performance required for quantitative measurement of BCR-ABL1 on the international reporting scale.
Article in Blood cancer journal, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of a novel multiplex RT-qPCR assay for the quantification of leukemia-associated BCR-ABL1 translocation.International journal of hematology · 2015Trial
- Resistance to Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors in Chronic Myeloid Leukemia-From Molecular Mechanisms to Clinical Relevance.Cancers · 2021Review
- Interrogating the molecular genetics of chronic myeloproliferative malignancies for personalized management in 2021.Haematologica · 2021Article
- Analytical Validation of a Highly Sensitive, Multiplexed Chronic Myeloid Leukemia Monitoring System Targeting BCR-ABL1 RNA.The Journal of molecular diagnostics : JMD · 2019Article
- External quality assessment for PML-RARα detection in acute promyelocytic leukemia: Findings and summary.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2019Article
- Development and evaluation of a secondary reference panel for BCR-ABL1 quantification on the International Scale.Leukemia · 2016Article
- The Case for Laboratory Developed Procedures: Quality and Positive Impact on Patient Care.Academic pathologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Accurate and standardized methods for the quantitative measurement of BCR-ABL1 are a prerequisite for monitoring of treatment response in t(9;22)-positive leukemia. Here, we describe a novel multiplex assay system based on the proven TaqMan and Armored RNA technologies and optimized for sensitive detection of three BCR-ABL1 fusion transcripts and ABL1 in a single reaction. Analytical experiments confirmed the absence of significant competition between the simultaneous amplification reactions and established the sensitivity, linearity and precision of the assay. Comparative studies with 115 clinical specimens resulted in high qualitative and quantitative agreement with independent singleplex laboratory-developed tests routinely used in clinical testing. Direct comparison with a reference laboratory calibrated to the international scale (IS) demonstrated minimal analytical bias between methods and an overall accuracy and precision within the performance range required for quantitative measurement of BCR-ABL1 on the IS. We conclude that detection of e1a2, b2a2, b3a2 and ABL1 can be achieved in a multiplex assay format compatible with IS reporting. Further clinical validation of the assay could improve the operational efficiency of clinical laboratories, increase their adherence to current recommendations for b2a2/b3a2 reporting on the IS and provide for the first time an opportunity to standardize e1a2-monitoring results.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.