La siguiente tabla de contingencia se diseñó para comparar el estado clínico
establecido con ambos métodos. Existe una gran concordancia entre el kit
ipsogen BCR-ABL1 Mbcr RGQ RT-PCR y el método de referencia (concordancia
general = 97,4%), tal como se muestra en la ilustración 9.
Ilustración 9. Tabla de contingencia comparativa entre el kit ipsogen BCR-ABL1 Mbcr RGQ
RT-PCR y un ensayo desarrollado en laboratorio estandarizado según la escala internacional.
Referencias
1. Cross NCP et al. (2012) Standardized definitions of molecular response
in chronic myeloid leukemia. Leukemia 26(10)
2. Mahon et al. (2013) Deep Molecular Response in Chronic Myeloid
Leukemia: The New Goal of Therapy. Clin Cancer Res 20(2): 310-322
3. Baccarani, M. et al. (2013) European LeukemiaNet recommendations for
the management of chronic myeloid leukemia: Blood, 122(6): 872-84.
4. Rousselot et al. (2014) Loss of major molecular response as a trigger for
restarting tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy in patients with chronic-phase
chronic myelogenous leukemia who have stopped imatinib after durable
undetectable disease. Journal of Clinical Oncology 32(5): 424-30.
5. Branford, S. et al. (2006) Rationale for the recommendations for
harmonizing current methodology for detecting BCR-ABL transcripts in
patients with chronic myeloid leukaemia. Leukemia 20, 1925.
6. Branford, S. et al. (2008) Desirable performance characteristics for BCR-ABL
measurement on an international reporting scale to allow consistent
interpretation of individual patient response and comparison of response
rates between clinical trials. Blood 112, 3330.
50
Método de referencia
Ninguna
RM 4
Ninguna
15
RM 4
RM 4 o
0
inferior
n
15
Manual del kit ipsogen BCR-ABL1 Mbcr RGQ RT-PCR 12/2014
RM 4 o
n
inferior
1
16
23
23
24
39
:
2172-5.