RUNX1-RUNX1T1融合转录本及WT1转录本水平检测的室间比对研究

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the current status and real performance of the detection of RUNX1-RUNX1T1 fusion transcript levels and WT1 transcript levels in China through interlaboratory comparison. METHODS: Peking University People's Hospital (PKUPH) prepared the samples for comparison. That is, the fresh RUNX1-RUNX1T1 positive (+) bone morrow nucleated cells were serially diluted with RUNX1-RUNX1T1 negative (−) nucleated cells from different patients. Totally 23 sets with 14 different samples per set were prepared. TRIzol reagent was added in each tube and thoroughly mixed with cells for homogenization. Each laboratory simultaneously tested RUNX1-RUNX1T1 and WT1 transcript levels of one set of samples by real-time quantitative PCR method. All transcript levels were reported as the percentage of RUNX1-RUNX1T1 or WT1 transcript copies/ABL copies. Spearman correlation coefficient between the reported transcript levels of each participated laboratory and those of PKUPH was calculated. RESULTS: ①RUNX1-RUNX1T1 comparison: 9 samples were (+) and 5 were (−) , the false negative and positive rates of the 20 participated laboratories were 0 (0/180) and 5% (5/100) , respectively. The reported transcript levels of all 9 positive samples were different among laboratories. The median reported transcript levels of 9 positive samples were from 0.060% to 176.7%, which covered 3.5-log. The ratios of each sample's highest to the lowest reported transcript levels were from 5.5 to 12.3 (one result which obviously deviated from other laboratories' results was not included) , 85% (17/20) of the laboratories had correlation coefficient ≥0.98. ②WT1 comparison: The median reported transcript levels of all 14 samples were from 0.17% to 67.6%, which covered 2.6-log. The ratios of each sample's highest to the lowest reported transcript levels were from 5.3-13.7, 62% (13/21) of the laboratories had correlation coefficient ≥0.98. ③The relative relationship of the reported RUNX1-RUNX1T1 transcript levels between the participants and PKUPH was not always consistent with that of WT1 transcript levels. Both RUNX1-RUNX1T1 and WT1 transcript levels from 2 and 7 laboratories were individually lower than and higher than those of PKUPH, whereas for the rest 11 laboratories, one transcript level was higher than and the other was lower than that of PKUPH. CONCLUSION: The reported RUNX1-RUNX1T1 and WT1 transcript levels were different among laboratories for the same sample. Most of the participated laboratories reported highly consistent result with that of PKUPH. The relationship between laboratories of the different transcript levels may not be the same.