Multicenter Comparison of Different Real-Time PCR Assays for Quantitative Detection of Epstein-Barr Virus
Quantification of Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) in peripheral blood is important for the diagnosis and management of serious EBV diseases, including posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorder. A variety of PCR-based methods are currently in use; however, there is little information on their comparabilit...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of Clinical Microbiology 2008-01, Vol.46 (1), p.157-163 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 163 |
---|---|
container_issue | 1 |
container_start_page | 157 |
container_title | Journal of Clinical Microbiology |
container_volume | 46 |
creator | Hayden, R.T Hokanson, K.M Pounds, S.B Bankowski, M.J Belzer, S.W Carr, J Diorio, D Forman, M.S Joshi, Y Hillyard, D Hodinka, R.L Nikiforova, M.N Romain, C.A Stevenson, J Valsamakis, A Balfour, H.H. Jr |
description | Quantification of Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) in peripheral blood is important for the diagnosis and management of serious EBV diseases, including posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorder. A variety of PCR-based methods are currently in use; however, there is little information on their comparability. This study assessed the relative performance of different quantitative assays. A multicenter comparative study was performed at eight sites using three panels consisting of serial dilutions of quantified EBV DNA and extracts from a total of 19 whole-blood specimens. Samples were distributed and tested blindly. Instrumentation, probe chemistries, amplification targets, and other test-related aspects varied considerably between laboratories. Each laboratory's calibration curve indicated strong evidence of a consistent log-linear relationship between viral load and cycle threshold, suggesting that intralaboratory tracking of a given patient would yield similar relative quantitative trends among the participating test sites. There was strong concordance among laboratories with respect to qualitative test results; however, marked quantitative discordance was seen. For most samples, the across-laboratory interquartile range of the reported viral load (in copies/μl) was roughly 0.6 log-units, and for one sample the overall range was approximately 4.2 log-units. While intralaboratory tracking of patients may yield similar results, these data indicate a need for caution when attempting to compare clinical results obtained at different institutions and suggest the potential value to be gained by more standardized testing methodology. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1128/jcm.01252-07 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_2224294</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>70182104</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c558t-73412d1e38d73cdfaf4cd3084d5752d7e95fe6b748efa87564a92b1638679e653</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqF0s1vFCEYBvCJ0dht9eZZueipU19gGODSpE7rV9qotTXeCMu87NLMxwozNf3vnXU2VU-eOLw_ngAPWfaMwhGlTL2-ce0RUCZYDvJBtqCgVV6W8P1htgDQIqeUy71sP6UbAFoUQjzO9qjUSlMlF1m4GJshOOwGjKTq242NIfUd6T05Dd5jnCbkEm2TX4UWyefqkpykZO8S8X0kX0bbDWGwQ7hFcooDuiHMm882acDQ5W9sjORbiGN6kj3ytkn4dLceZNdvz66q9_n5p3cfqpPz3AmhhlzygrKaIle15K721heu5qCKWkjBaolaeCyXslDorZKiLKxmS1pyVUqNpeAH2fGcuxmXLdbbq0XbmE0MrY13prfB_Dvpwtqs-lvDGCuYLqaAV7uA2P8YMQ2mDclh09gO-zEZCVQxCv-HDARTpYYJHs7QxT6liP7-NBTMtkTzsbowv0s0ICf-_O8b_MG71ibwcgdscrbx0XYupHvHgIHWjE-OzG4dVuufIaKxqTXThzFFaaihYhv1Yibe9saupvLN9VcGlMP05KIEzn8BNzS5zA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>20528690</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Multicenter Comparison of Different Real-Time PCR Assays for Quantitative Detection of Epstein-Barr Virus</title><source>American Society for Microbiology</source><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Hayden, R.T ; Hokanson, K.M ; Pounds, S.B ; Bankowski, M.J ; Belzer, S.W ; Carr, J ; Diorio, D ; Forman, M.S ; Joshi, Y ; Hillyard, D ; Hodinka, R.L ; Nikiforova, M.N ; Romain, C.A ; Stevenson, J ; Valsamakis, A ; Balfour, H.H. Jr</creator><creatorcontrib>Hayden, R.T ; Hokanson, K.M ; Pounds, S.B ; Bankowski, M.J ; Belzer, S.W ; Carr, J ; Diorio, D ; Forman, M.S ; Joshi, Y ; Hillyard, D ; Hodinka, R.L ; Nikiforova, M.N ; Romain, C.A ; Stevenson, J ; Valsamakis, A ; Balfour, H.H. Jr ; U.S. EBV Working Group</creatorcontrib><description>Quantification of Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) in peripheral blood is important for the diagnosis and management of serious EBV diseases, including posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorder. A variety of PCR-based methods are currently in use; however, there is little information on their comparability. This study assessed the relative performance of different quantitative assays. A multicenter comparative study was performed at eight sites using three panels consisting of serial dilutions of quantified EBV DNA and extracts from a total of 19 whole-blood specimens. Samples were distributed and tested blindly. Instrumentation, probe chemistries, amplification targets, and other test-related aspects varied considerably between laboratories. Each laboratory's calibration curve indicated strong evidence of a consistent log-linear relationship between viral load and cycle threshold, suggesting that intralaboratory tracking of a given patient would yield similar relative quantitative trends among the participating test sites. There was strong concordance among laboratories with respect to qualitative test results; however, marked quantitative discordance was seen. For most samples, the across-laboratory interquartile range of the reported viral load (in copies/μl) was roughly 0.6 log-units, and for one sample the overall range was approximately 4.2 log-units. While intralaboratory tracking of patients may yield similar results, these data indicate a need for caution when attempting to compare clinical results obtained at different institutions and suggest the potential value to be gained by more standardized testing methodology.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0095-1137</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1098-660X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1098-5530</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1128/jcm.01252-07</identifier><identifier>PMID: 17989187</identifier><identifier>CODEN: JCMIDW</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Washington, DC: American Society for Microbiology</publisher><subject>Biological and medical sciences ; Calibration - standards ; DNA, Viral - blood ; Epstein-Barr virus ; Epstein-Barr Virus Infections - virology ; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology ; Herpesvirus 4, Human - isolation & purification ; Humans ; Microbiology ; Miscellaneous ; Polymerase Chain Reaction - methods ; Reproducibility of Results ; Viral Load - methods ; Viral Load - standards ; Virology</subject><ispartof>Journal of Clinical Microbiology, 2008-01, Vol.46 (1), p.157-163</ispartof><rights>2008 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>Copyright © 2008, American Society for Microbiology</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c558t-73412d1e38d73cdfaf4cd3084d5752d7e95fe6b748efa87564a92b1638679e653</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c558t-73412d1e38d73cdfaf4cd3084d5752d7e95fe6b748efa87564a92b1638679e653</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2224294/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2224294/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,723,776,780,881,3175,3176,27901,27902,53766,53768</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=20209923$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17989187$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Hayden, R.T</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hokanson, K.M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pounds, S.B</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bankowski, M.J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Belzer, S.W</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Carr, J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Diorio, D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Forman, M.S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Joshi, Y</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hillyard, D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hodinka, R.L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nikiforova, M.N</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Romain, C.A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stevenson, J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Valsamakis, A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Balfour, H.H. Jr</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>U.S. EBV Working Group</creatorcontrib><title>Multicenter Comparison of Different Real-Time PCR Assays for Quantitative Detection of Epstein-Barr Virus</title><title>Journal of Clinical Microbiology</title><addtitle>J Clin Microbiol</addtitle><description>Quantification of Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) in peripheral blood is important for the diagnosis and management of serious EBV diseases, including posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorder. A variety of PCR-based methods are currently in use; however, there is little information on their comparability. This study assessed the relative performance of different quantitative assays. A multicenter comparative study was performed at eight sites using three panels consisting of serial dilutions of quantified EBV DNA and extracts from a total of 19 whole-blood specimens. Samples were distributed and tested blindly. Instrumentation, probe chemistries, amplification targets, and other test-related aspects varied considerably between laboratories. Each laboratory's calibration curve indicated strong evidence of a consistent log-linear relationship between viral load and cycle threshold, suggesting that intralaboratory tracking of a given patient would yield similar relative quantitative trends among the participating test sites. There was strong concordance among laboratories with respect to qualitative test results; however, marked quantitative discordance was seen. For most samples, the across-laboratory interquartile range of the reported viral load (in copies/μl) was roughly 0.6 log-units, and for one sample the overall range was approximately 4.2 log-units. While intralaboratory tracking of patients may yield similar results, these data indicate a need for caution when attempting to compare clinical results obtained at different institutions and suggest the potential value to be gained by more standardized testing methodology.</description><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Calibration - standards</subject><subject>DNA, Viral - blood</subject><subject>Epstein-Barr virus</subject><subject>Epstein-Barr Virus Infections - virology</subject><subject>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</subject><subject>Herpesvirus 4, Human - isolation & purification</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Microbiology</subject><subject>Miscellaneous</subject><subject>Polymerase Chain Reaction - methods</subject><subject>Reproducibility of Results</subject><subject>Viral Load - methods</subject><subject>Viral Load - standards</subject><subject>Virology</subject><issn>0095-1137</issn><issn>1098-660X</issn><issn>1098-5530</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2008</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqF0s1vFCEYBvCJ0dht9eZZueipU19gGODSpE7rV9qotTXeCMu87NLMxwozNf3vnXU2VU-eOLw_ngAPWfaMwhGlTL2-ce0RUCZYDvJBtqCgVV6W8P1htgDQIqeUy71sP6UbAFoUQjzO9qjUSlMlF1m4GJshOOwGjKTq242NIfUd6T05Dd5jnCbkEm2TX4UWyefqkpykZO8S8X0kX0bbDWGwQ7hFcooDuiHMm882acDQ5W9sjORbiGN6kj3ytkn4dLceZNdvz66q9_n5p3cfqpPz3AmhhlzygrKaIle15K721heu5qCKWkjBaolaeCyXslDorZKiLKxmS1pyVUqNpeAH2fGcuxmXLdbbq0XbmE0MrY13prfB_Dvpwtqs-lvDGCuYLqaAV7uA2P8YMQ2mDclh09gO-zEZCVQxCv-HDARTpYYJHs7QxT6liP7-NBTMtkTzsbowv0s0ICf-_O8b_MG71ibwcgdscrbx0XYupHvHgIHWjE-OzG4dVuufIaKxqTXThzFFaaihYhv1Yibe9saupvLN9VcGlMP05KIEzn8BNzS5zA</recordid><startdate>20080101</startdate><enddate>20080101</enddate><creator>Hayden, R.T</creator><creator>Hokanson, K.M</creator><creator>Pounds, S.B</creator><creator>Bankowski, M.J</creator><creator>Belzer, S.W</creator><creator>Carr, J</creator><creator>Diorio, D</creator><creator>Forman, M.S</creator><creator>Joshi, Y</creator><creator>Hillyard, D</creator><creator>Hodinka, R.L</creator><creator>Nikiforova, M.N</creator><creator>Romain, C.A</creator><creator>Stevenson, J</creator><creator>Valsamakis, A</creator><creator>Balfour, H.H. Jr</creator><general>American Society for Microbiology</general><general>American Society for Microbiology (ASM)</general><scope>FBQ</scope><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20080101</creationdate><title>Multicenter Comparison of Different Real-Time PCR Assays for Quantitative Detection of Epstein-Barr Virus</title><author>Hayden, R.T ; Hokanson, K.M ; Pounds, S.B ; Bankowski, M.J ; Belzer, S.W ; Carr, J ; Diorio, D ; Forman, M.S ; Joshi, Y ; Hillyard, D ; Hodinka, R.L ; Nikiforova, M.N ; Romain, C.A ; Stevenson, J ; Valsamakis, A ; Balfour, H.H. Jr</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c558t-73412d1e38d73cdfaf4cd3084d5752d7e95fe6b748efa87564a92b1638679e653</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2008</creationdate><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Calibration - standards</topic><topic>DNA, Viral - blood</topic><topic>Epstein-Barr virus</topic><topic>Epstein-Barr Virus Infections - virology</topic><topic>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</topic><topic>Herpesvirus 4, Human - isolation & purification</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Microbiology</topic><topic>Miscellaneous</topic><topic>Polymerase Chain Reaction - methods</topic><topic>Reproducibility of Results</topic><topic>Viral Load - methods</topic><topic>Viral Load - standards</topic><topic>Virology</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Hayden, R.T</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hokanson, K.M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pounds, S.B</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bankowski, M.J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Belzer, S.W</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Carr, J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Diorio, D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Forman, M.S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Joshi, Y</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hillyard, D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hodinka, R.L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nikiforova, M.N</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Romain, C.A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stevenson, J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Valsamakis, A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Balfour, H.H. Jr</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>U.S. EBV Working Group</creatorcontrib><collection>AGRIS</collection><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Journal of Clinical Microbiology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Hayden, R.T</au><au>Hokanson, K.M</au><au>Pounds, S.B</au><au>Bankowski, M.J</au><au>Belzer, S.W</au><au>Carr, J</au><au>Diorio, D</au><au>Forman, M.S</au><au>Joshi, Y</au><au>Hillyard, D</au><au>Hodinka, R.L</au><au>Nikiforova, M.N</au><au>Romain, C.A</au><au>Stevenson, J</au><au>Valsamakis, A</au><au>Balfour, H.H. Jr</au><aucorp>U.S. EBV Working Group</aucorp><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Multicenter Comparison of Different Real-Time PCR Assays for Quantitative Detection of Epstein-Barr Virus</atitle><jtitle>Journal of Clinical Microbiology</jtitle><addtitle>J Clin Microbiol</addtitle><date>2008-01-01</date><risdate>2008</risdate><volume>46</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>157</spage><epage>163</epage><pages>157-163</pages><issn>0095-1137</issn><eissn>1098-660X</eissn><eissn>1098-5530</eissn><coden>JCMIDW</coden><abstract>Quantification of Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) in peripheral blood is important for the diagnosis and management of serious EBV diseases, including posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorder. A variety of PCR-based methods are currently in use; however, there is little information on their comparability. This study assessed the relative performance of different quantitative assays. A multicenter comparative study was performed at eight sites using three panels consisting of serial dilutions of quantified EBV DNA and extracts from a total of 19 whole-blood specimens. Samples were distributed and tested blindly. Instrumentation, probe chemistries, amplification targets, and other test-related aspects varied considerably between laboratories. Each laboratory's calibration curve indicated strong evidence of a consistent log-linear relationship between viral load and cycle threshold, suggesting that intralaboratory tracking of a given patient would yield similar relative quantitative trends among the participating test sites. There was strong concordance among laboratories with respect to qualitative test results; however, marked quantitative discordance was seen. For most samples, the across-laboratory interquartile range of the reported viral load (in copies/μl) was roughly 0.6 log-units, and for one sample the overall range was approximately 4.2 log-units. While intralaboratory tracking of patients may yield similar results, these data indicate a need for caution when attempting to compare clinical results obtained at different institutions and suggest the potential value to be gained by more standardized testing methodology.</abstract><cop>Washington, DC</cop><pub>American Society for Microbiology</pub><pmid>17989187</pmid><doi>10.1128/jcm.01252-07</doi><tpages>7</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0095-1137 |
ispartof | Journal of Clinical Microbiology, 2008-01, Vol.46 (1), p.157-163 |
issn | 0095-1137 1098-660X 1098-5530 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_2224294 |
source | American Society for Microbiology; MEDLINE; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; PubMed Central |
subjects | Biological and medical sciences Calibration - standards DNA, Viral - blood Epstein-Barr virus Epstein-Barr Virus Infections - virology Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology Herpesvirus 4, Human - isolation & purification Humans Microbiology Miscellaneous Polymerase Chain Reaction - methods Reproducibility of Results Viral Load - methods Viral Load - standards Virology |
title | Multicenter Comparison of Different Real-Time PCR Assays for Quantitative Detection of Epstein-Barr Virus |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-08T05%3A44%3A57IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Multicenter%20Comparison%20of%20Different%20Real-Time%20PCR%20Assays%20for%20Quantitative%20Detection%20of%20Epstein-Barr%20Virus&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20Clinical%20Microbiology&rft.au=Hayden,%20R.T&rft.aucorp=U.S.%20EBV%20Working%20Group&rft.date=2008-01-01&rft.volume=46&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=157&rft.epage=163&rft.pages=157-163&rft.issn=0095-1137&rft.eissn=1098-660X&rft.coden=JCMIDW&rft_id=info:doi/10.1128/jcm.01252-07&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E70182104%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=20528690&rft_id=info:pmid/17989187&rfr_iscdi=true |