['Until recently, diagnostic laboratories that wanted to report on the international scale had limited options: they had to align their BCR-ABL1 quantification methods through a sample exchange with a reference laboratory to derive a conversion factor. However, commercial methods calibrated on the World Health Organization genetic reference panel are now available. We report results from a study designed to assess the comparability of the two alignment strategies.', 'Sixty follow-up samples from chronic myeloid leukemia patients were included. Two commercial methods calibrated on the genetic reference panel were compared to two conversion factor methods routinely used at Saint-Louis Hospital, Paris, and at Lille University Hospital. Results were matched against concordance criteria (i.e., obtaining at least two of the three following landmarks: 50, 75 and 90% of the patient samples within a 2-fold, 3-fold and 5-fold range, respectively).', 'Out of the 60 samples, more than 32 were available for comparison. Compared to the conversion factor method, the two commercial methods were within a 2-fold, 3-fold and 5-fold range for 53 and 59%, 89 and 88%, 100 and 97%, respectively of the samples analyzed at Saint-Louis. At Lille, results were 45 and 85%, 76 and 97%, 100 and 100%, respectively. Agreements between methods were observed in the four comparisons performed.'] Is calibration of BCR-ABL1 mRNA quantification methods using genetic reference materials a valid strategy to report results on the international scale?