Standardized monitoring of BCR::ABL1 mRNA levels is essential for the management of chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) patients. From 2016 to 2021 the European Treatment and Outcome Study for CML (EUTOS) explored the use of secondary, lyophilized cell-based BCR::ABL1 reference panels traceable to the World Health Organization primary reference material to standardize and validate local laboratory tests. Panels were used to assign and validate conversion factors (CFs) to the International Scale and assess the ability of laboratories to assess deep molecular response (DMR). The study also explored aspects of internal quality control. The percentage of EUTOS reference laboratories (n = 50) with CFs validated as optimal or satisfactory increased from 67.5% to 97.6% and 36.4% to 91.7% for ABL1 and GUSB, respectively, during the study period and 98% of laboratories were able to detect MR^4.5 in most samples. Laboratories with unvalidated CFs had a higher coefficient of variation for BCR::ABL1^IS and some laboratories had a limit of blank greater than zero which could affect the accurate reporting of DMR. Our study indicates that secondary reference panels can be used effectively to obtain and validate CFs in a manner equivalent to sample exchange and can also be used to monitor additional aspects of quality assurance.

The COVID-19 pandemic has forced diagnostic laboratories to focus on the early diagnostics of SARS-CoV-2. The positivity of a molecular test cannot respond to the question regarding the viral capability to replicate, spread, and give different clinical effects. Despite the fact that some targets are covered by commercially-available assays, the identification of new biomarkers is desired in order to improve the quality of the information given by these assays. Therefore, since the subgenomic transcripts (sgN and sgE) are considered markers of viral activity, we evaluated these subgenomic transcripts in relation to the genomic amplification obtained using five different commercial CE-IVD tools. Methods: Five CE-IVD kits were compared in terms of their capability to detect both synthetic SARS-CoV-2 viral constructs (spiked in TMB or PBS medium) and targets (N, E, RdRp and Orf1ab genes) in twenty COVID-19–positive patients’ swabs. The sgN and sgE were assayed by real-time RT-qPCR and digital PCR. Results: None of the diagnostic kits missed the viral target genes when they were applied to targets spiked in TMB or PBS (at dilutions ranging from 100 pg to 0.1 pg). Nevertheless, once they were applied to RNA extracted from the patients’ swabs, the superimposability ranged from 50% to 100%, regardless of the extraction procedure. The sgN RNA transcript was detected only in samples with a higher viral load (Ct ≤ 22.5), while sgE was within all of the Ct ranges. Conclusions: The five kits show variable performances depending on the assay layout. It is worthy of note that the detection of the sgN transcript is associated with a higher viral load, thus representing a new marker of early and more severe infection.

BCR-ABL1 fusion transcript is the minimal residual disease marker in chronic myeloid leukemia; 2% of patients show unusual breakpoints generating atypical transcripts, not quantifiable by standardized real-time PCR (RT–PCR). Response monitoring is performed by non-quantitative NESTED PCR, useless for evaluating patients’ molecular remission, excluding them from treatment-free-remission protocols. Droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) is highly sensitive technology, allowing an absolute quantification independent of standard curves. Based on this, we have developed assays able to evaluate the molecular response in atypical patients. We designed new ddPCR-based molecular assays able to quantify atypical BCR-ABL1 transcripts, with a detection limit of 0.001%, validated in a cohort of 65 RNA from 11 patients. Fifty samples were identified congruently by ddPCR and NESTED PCR (40 positives and 10 negatives for atypical BCR–ABL1 transcript), while 11 positive samples were detected only by ddPCR. Our results highlight ddPCR usefulness, primarily when the BCR–ABL1/ABL1 level is less than 1.5% and NESTED PCR results are often inaccurate. Furthermore, we identified 3 patients who maintained a deep molecular response for at least one year, who could be considered good candidates for treatment-free remission approaches. Here, we describe a new promising molecular approach, highly sensitive, to monitor atypical BCR–ABL1 patients, paving the foundation to include them in treatment-free remission protocols.

Several studies have reported that chronic myeloid leukaemia (CML) patients expressing e14a2BCR::ABL1have a faster molecular response to therapy compared to patients expressing e13a2. To explore the reason for this difference we undertook a detailed technical comparison of the commonly used Europe Against Cancer (EAC)BCR::ABL1reverse transcriptase quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) assay in European Treatment and Outcome Study (EUTOS) reference laboratories (n = 10). We found the amplification ratio of the e13a2 amplicon was 38% greater than e14a2 (p = 0.015), and the amplification efficiency was 2% greater (P = 0.17). This subtle difference led to measurable transcript-type dependent variation in estimates of residual disease which could be corrected by (i) taking the qPCR amplification efficiency into account, (ii) using alternative RT-qPCR approaches or (iii) droplet digital PCR (ddPCR), a technique which is relatively insensitive to differences in amplification kinetics. In CML patients, higher levels ofBCR::ABL1/GUSBwere identified at diagnosis for patients expressing e13a2 (n = 67) compared to e14a2 (n = 78) when analysed by RT-qPCR (P = 0.0005) but not ddPCR (P = 0.5). These data indicate that widely used RT-qPCR assays result in subtly different estimates of disease depending onBCR::ABL1transcript type; these differences are small but may need to be considered for optimal patient management.

More than 15 years ago, imatinib entered into the clinical practice as a “magic bullet”; from that point on, the prognosis of patients affected by chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) became comparable to that of aged-matched healthy subjects. The aims of treatment with tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) are for complete hematological response after 3 months of treatment, complete cytogenetic response after 6 months, and a reduction of the molecular disease of at least 3 logs after 12 months. Patients who do not reach their goal can switch to another TKI. Thus, the molecular monitoring of response is the main consideration of management of CML patients. Moreover, cases in deep and persistent molecular response can tempt the physician to interrupt treatment, and this “dream” is possible due to the quantitative PCR. After great international effort, today the BCR-ABL1 expression obtained in each laboratory is standardized and expressed as “international scale.” This aim has been reached after the establishment of the EUTOS program (in Europe) and the LabNet network (in Italy), the platforms where biologists meet clinicians. In the field of quantitative PCR, the digital PCR is now a new and promising, sensitive and accurate tool. Some authors reported that digital PCR is able to better classify patients in precise “molecular classes,” which could lead to a better identification of those cases that will benefit from the interruption of therapy. In addition, digital PCR can be used to identify a point mutation in the ABL1 domain, mutations that are often responsible for the TKI resistance. In the field of resistance, a prominent role is played by the NGS that enables identification of any mutation in ABL1 domain, even at sub-clonal levels. This manuscript reviews how the molecular tools can lead the management of CML patients, focusing on the more recent technical advances.

BCR–ABL1 mRNA levels represent the key molecular marker for the evaluation of minimal residual disease (MRD) in chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) patients and real-time quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR) is currently the standard method to monitor it. In the era of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) discontinuation, droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) has emerged to provide a more precise detection of MRD. To hypothesize the use of ddPCR in clinical practice, we designed a multicentric study to evaluate the potential value of ddPCR in the diagnostic routine. Thirty-seven RNA samples from CML patients and five from healthy donors were analyzed using both ddPCR QXDx^TMBCR-ABL %IS Kit and LabNet-approved RT-qPCR methodologies in three different Italian laboratories. Our results show that ddPCR has a good agreement with RT-qPCR, but it is more precise to quantify BCR–ABL1 transcript levels. Furthermore, we did not find differences between duplicate or quadruplicate analysis in terms of BCR–ABL1% IS values. Droplet digital PCR could be confidently introduced into the diagnostic routine as a complement to the RT-qPCR.