Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Purpose The sensitivity of real-time quantitative reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) for detecting measurable residual disease (MRD) in patients with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) who have achieved a deep molecular response is limited. We validated a digital PCR (dPCR) assay (LQ Check BCR::ABL1 Major %IS Kit) for MRD quantification. Methods Validation was performed according to CLSI guidelines EP17-A2, EP06, EP05-A3, and EP07 using BCR::ABL1 -positive and -negative materials and the World Health Organization (WHO) 1st International Standard. A nonparametric analysis of the limit of blank was used to establish a positivity cutoff of ≥ 2 droplets. The limit of detection (LoD) was verified using a detection criterion of ≥ 95%, and the limit of quantitation (LoQ) was defined as the lowest level meeting ≥ 95% detection and a study-defined %CV of ≤ 76%. Clinical validation included 72 CML specimens for molecular response (MR) category comparisons and 67 specimens for paired quantitative comparisons. Results The LoD and LoQ were both 0.0025% on the International Scale (IS) with a detection rate of 95.8%. The assay showed linearity over 5 logs (R 2 = 0.9916–0.9972), within-run %CV ≤ 1.52%, cross-condition %CV ≤ 2.76%, and WHO-traceable accuracy. In 67 paired specimens, the correlation coefficient was r = 0.9740, with a Passing–Bablok slope of 1.0189, intercept of −0.2552, and Bland–Altman mean bias of 0.2266. Among the 72 specimens, dPCR classified 20 as having a deeper MR than RT-qPCR. Reproducibility was characterized by r = 0.99 and a mean bias of 0.0967. Whole blood was preferably processed within 48 h, with processing at 72 h considered acceptable only when BCR QC criteria were met. Conclusion The LQ Check BCR::ABL1 Major %IS Kit enabled sensitive, precise, and reproducible BCR::ABL1 quantification at MR4.6. The clinical significance of a deeper MR classification using dPCR, particularly for treatment-free remission, requires longitudinal validation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kim et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: