BACKGROUND: ZAP-70 expression is a stage independent prognostic marker in CLL. However, interlaboratory variation is large, and there is neither a consensus nor a regulatory approved methodology. METHODS: Two anti-ZAP70 clones (1E7.2 and SBZAP) were compared in 45 untreated CLL patients. Nine different methods for ZAP-70 expression analysis were evaluated: M1, isotype control to determine negative; M2, internal residual T-cell to determine positive; M3, normal donor (ND) T-cell to determine positive; M4, internal T-cell/clone ratio; M5, ND residual T-cell/clone ratio; M6, clone/normal remaining B-cell ratio; M7, clone/ND B- cell ratio; M8, CLL-Z score; M9, modified CLL-Z score. A scoring system was designed integrating both 1E7.2 and SBZAP clones to assign ZAP-70 expression. RESULTS: The correlation coefficients for the four selected highest statistically significant methods were as follows (M1 = 0.71, M3 = 0.72, M7 = 0.67, and M9 = 0.64). These four methods were used to generate a combined score. The two reagents showed agreement using the designed scoring system for 37/45 samples (82%), and 8/45 (18%) showed equivocal result with one of the two clones. Seven of the eight equivocal samples were resolved using the scoring system. CONCLUSIONS: Four of the nine methods of analysis were compared for each reagent. The use of two independent ZAP-70 reagents increases analytical certitude and the scoring method aids in the resolution of equivocal results. The combined use of two reagents, four methods of analysis, and a scoring method allowed for assignment of ZAP-70 expression in 44/45 samples (98%) tested and improved performance of this important prognostic assay. Published 2011 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
BACKGROUND:ZAP-70 expression is a stage independent prognostic marker in CLL. However, interlaboratory variation is large, and there is neither a consensus nor a regulatory approved methodology. METHODS: Two anti-ZAP70 clones (1E7.2 and SBZAP) were compared in 45 untreated CLL patients. Nine different methods for ZAP-70 expression analysis were evaluated: M1, isotype control to determine negative; M2, internal residual T-cell to determine positive; M3, normal donor (ND) T-cell to determine positive; M4, internal T-cell/clone ratio; M5, ND residual T-cell/clone ratio; M6, clone/normal remaining B-cell ratio; M7, clone/ND B- cell ratio; M8, CLL-Z score; M9, modified CLL-Z score. A scoring system was designed integrating both 1E7.2 and SBZAP clones to assign ZAP-70 expression. RESULTS: The correlation coefficients for the four selected highest statistically significant methods were as follows (M1 = 0.71, M3 = 0.72, M7 = 0.67, and M9 = 0.64). These four methods were used to generate a combined score. The two reagents showed agreement using the designed scoring system for 37/45 samples (82%), and 8/45 (18%) showed equivocal result with one of the two clones. Seven of the eight equivocal samples were resolved using the scoring system. CONCLUSIONS: Four of the nine methods of analysis were compared for each reagent. The use of two independent ZAP-70 reagents increases analytical certitude and the scoring method aids in the resolution of equivocal results. The combined use of two reagents, four methods of analysis, and a scoring method allowed for assignment of ZAP-70 expression in 44/45 samples (98%) tested and improved performance of this important prognostic assay. Published 2011 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
Authors: Jenny A Orchard; Rachel E Ibbotson; Zadie Davis; Adrian Wiestner; Andreas Rosenwald; Peter W Thomas; Terry J Hamblin; Louis M Staudt; David G Oscier Journal: Lancet Date: 2004-01-10 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Laura Z Rassenti; Lang Huynh; Tracy L Toy; Liguang Chen; Michael J Keating; John G Gribben; Donna S Neuberg; Ian W Flinn; Kanti R Rai; John C Byrd; Neil E Kay; Andrew Greaves; Arthur Weiss; Thomas J Kipps Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-08-26 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Gerald E Marti; Andy C Rawstron; Paolo Ghia; Peter Hillmen; Richard S Houlston; Neil Kay; Thérèse A Schleinitz; Neil Caporaso Journal: Br J Haematol Date: 2005-08 Impact factor: 6.998
Authors: R N Damle; T Wasil; F Fais; F Ghiotto; A Valetto; S L Allen; A Buchbinder; D Budman; K Dittmar; J Kolitz; S M Lichtman; P Schulman; V P Vinciguerra; K R Rai; M Ferrarini; N Chiorazzi Journal: Blood Date: 1999-09-15 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Adrian Wiestner; Andreas Rosenwald; Todd S Barry; George Wright; R Eric Davis; Sarah E Henrickson; Hong Zhao; Rachel E Ibbotson; Jenny A Orchard; Zadie Davis; Maryalice Stetler-Stevenson; Mark Raffeld; Diane C Arthur; Gerald E Marti; Wyndham H Wilson; Terry J Hamblin; David G Oscier; Louis M Staudt Journal: Blood Date: 2003-02-20 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Francesca M Rossi; Maria Ilaria Del Principe; Davide Rossi; Maria Irno Consalvo; Fabrizio Luciano; Antonella Zucchetto; Pietro Bulian; Riccardo Bomben; Michele Dal Bo; Marco Fangazio; Dania Benedetti; Massimo Degan; Gianluca Gaidano; Giovanni Del Poeta; Valter Gattei Journal: J Transl Med Date: 2010-03-08 Impact factor: 5.531
Authors: Heba A Degheidy; David J Venzon; Mohammed Z H Farooqui; Fatima Abbasi; Diane C Arthur; Wyndham H Wilson; Adrian Wiestner; M A Stetler-Stevenson; Gerald E Marti Journal: Cytometry B Clin Cytom Date: 2011-10-26 Impact factor: 3.058