ArticleMolecular diagnosis & therapy2020
Comparison of Droplet Digital PCR versus qPCR Measurements on the International Scale for the Molecular Monitoring of Chronic Myeloid Leukemia Patients.
Article in Molecular diagnosis & therapy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Identification of a Maturation Plasma Cell Index through a Highly Sensitive Droplet Digital PCR Assay Gene Expression Signature Validation in Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma Patients.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Article
- Digital Droplet PCR in Hematologic Malignancies: A New Useful Molecular Tool.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Current and Emerging Applications of Droplet Digital PCR in Oncology: An Updated Review.Molecular diagnosis & therapy · 2022Review
- Making Treatment-Free Remission (TFR) Easier in Chronic Myeloid Leukemia: Fact-Checking and Practical Management Tools.Targeted oncology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBCR-ABL1/ABL1 p210 measurement by quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) is used worldwide to monitor the molecular response in chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) patients. Droplet digital polymerase chain reaction (ddPCR) seems to show a greater sensitivity than qPCR, probably due to the high number of replicates analyzed in ddPCR for the comparison. Additionally, in a recently published comparison, ddPCR measurements were not adequately transformed into International Scale (IS).
methodWe have analyzed 50 CML patients and ten non-CML donors in parallel by qPCR and ddPCR. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study comparing both techniques under similar conditions, with BCR-ABL1/ABL1 measurements performed via both techniques transformed into IS.
resultsQualitative and quantitative comparisons showed excellent results. The qualitative correlation showed a Kappa index of 0.94 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.90-0.98) (P < 0.001). In the quantitative comparison, the absolute intra-class correlation coefficient was 0.868 (95% CI 0.734-0.937; P < 0.001), and Lin's concordance correlation coefficient was 0.863. The Passing-Bablock test indicated a slight proportional difference between qPCR and ddPCR. A quantitative and qualitative subanalysis including 40 patients with a molecular response of 3.0 or deeper showed similar results in every test. In addition, the proportional difference in the Passing-Bablock test disappeared. There were no differences in the sensitivity for BCR-ABL1 detection between qPCR and ddPCR (McNemar test, P = 0.5).
conclusionsIn conclusion, our results show very good quantitative and qualitative correlations between BCR-ABL1/ABL1 p210 results obtained by qPCR and by ddPCR and confirm previous scarce data regarding the lack of an increase in sensitivity of ddPCR over qPCR in this setting.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32875515What 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.