External Quality Assessment Providers Research Articles

Glucose inhibitor tubes in Croatian laboratories: are we doing well?

Reliable and accurate measurement of blood glucose concentration is of crucial importance for making clinical decisions in diagnosis diabetes, gestational diabetes and impaired fasting glucose tolerance. Survey was performed in form of questionnaire. Questionnaire was sent to all Croatian laboratories (N = 204) in electronic form using SurveyMonkey cloud-based software (SurveyMonkey, Inc., San Mateo, USA) as an extra-analytical module of the Croatian EQA (External Quality Assessment) provider Croatian center for external quality assessment (CROQALM) in June 2023. In total 148 (73%) of laboratories responded to the survey. Large proportion of laboratories never use glucose inhibitor tubes for random glucose measurement (more than half) or for glucose function tests (one quarter). Only three laboratories use recommended glycolysis inhibitor citrate. Many other inhibitors are also used, even if some of them are not recommended for plasma glucose measurement. Glucose is almost never (93%) sampled on ice when glucose inhibitor tube is not available. Laboratories in Croatia do not follow the recommended procedures regarding glycolysis inhibitors for glucose determination.

B-324 Pilot Study Result of EQA for Fecal Immunochemical Test for Hemoglobin Using a Novel Ready-to-Use Sample Material

Abstract Background The primary screening method for colorectal cancer is fecal immunochemical test (FIT) detecting human hemoglobin (Hb) in feces. There are several tests on the market both for automated analyzers and point-of-care testing (POCT). To ensure high quality results, the tests should be monitored with appropriate quality assessment procedures including participation in external quality assessment (EQA) programs. By participating in an EQA program using a stool-like material, clinical laboratories and POCT sites can fulfil the ISO 15189 requirements of monitoring the complete laboratory process from pre- to postanalytical phases in addition to the quantitative analytical phase of FIT. Here we present the first results of an international EQA pilot study for quantitative FIT using a novel ready-to-use stool-like material, performed by EQA provider Labquality. Methods 40 participants from 8 countries using 9 different FIT reagents were recruited for the pilot study performed in 2023. A set of artificial stool samples containing human hemoglobin uniformly was shipped to the participants at ambient temperature. The sample material is developed by HECTEF (Health Care Technology Foundation, Japan). The participants were instructed to collect the sample with their test specific sample collection kit and perform analysis according to the manufacturer’s instructions as a regular patient sample. Quantitative results (µg Hb/g feces) and qualitative interpretations (positive/negative) were reported in Labquality’s electronic platform LabScala. The quantitative target value was a method group consensus mean. A questionnaire regarding the usability of the sample material was sent to all participants. Results Sample S001 contained no Hb and all participants (40/40) reported a result corresponding to the lower detection limit of their test in use or a low numeric result most likely explained by unspecific background. All reported a negative interpretation. Sample S002 was a high positive sample for Hb. The measured value exceeded the upper detection limit of 4/9 tests (Exdia iFOB, Precision Biosensor; Fecal Occult Blood (iFOB) Neo, Boditech; FOB Test, VedaLab; NADAL FOB Quant test, Nal von Minden). The mean values and CV% were 116 µg/g and 8% for iFOBT, Aidian; 192 ug/g and 4% for Standard iFOB FIA, SD Biosensor; 144 µg/g and 45% for FOB assay kit FOB Gold, Sentinel Diagnostics (different clinical chemistry analyzers used); 91 µg/g and 26% for OC-Sensor FIT, Eiken Chemical. All participants responded a positive qualitative clinical interpretation. The majority of the responders on the feedback questionnaire (26/35) found the samples to be easy to use including comments of the sample being user-friendly and ready-to-use, resembling a patient sample and easy to apply with the test specific sample collection kit. Conclusions The fecal-like sample used in this Labquality’s EQA pilot study evaluates the complete analytical process including the preanalytical, analytical and postanalytical phases. An EQA scheme using this sample material is more compliant to ISO 15189 requirements compared to schemes where liquid or lyophilized samples are used. The new sample material used on this pilot study was positively received by most of the participants and it was compatible with all tests included in the study.

Comparison of Thrombophilia Assay Results for the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis Scientific and Standardization Committee Plasma Standard from Different External Quality Assessment Providers-for the External Quality Assurance in Thrombosis and Haemostasis Group.

External quality assessment (EQA) is used to evaluate laboratory performance in tests of hemostasis; however, some esoteric tests are performed by too few centers in any one EQA program to allow valid statistical assessment. To explore the feasibility of pooling data from several EQA providers, an exercise was carried out by the External Quality Assurance in Thrombosis and Haemostasis group, using the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis Scientific and Standardization Committee (SSC) plasma standard for thrombophilia screening assays. Six EQA providers took part in this exercise, distributing the SSC plasma standard as a "blinded" sample to participants for thrombophilia tests between November 2020 and December 2021. Data were collected by each provider, anonymized, and pooled for analysis. Results were analyzed as overall results from each EQA provider, and by kit/method-specific comparisons of data from all providers pooled together. For each parameter, median results and range were determined. Over 1,250 sets of data were returned in the six EQA programs. The overall medians (all data pooled) were <4% of the assigned values for each parameter with the exception of protein C activity by clot-based assay. Method-related differences in median results were observed for free protein S antigen and protein S activity-a pattern seen across data from the different EQA providers. Antithrombin antigen results reported in mg/dL provided an example where small numbers of results for a single EQA provider may be supplemented by pooling data from multiple providers with good agreement seen among results reported by the different EQA providers. This study demonstrated that a multicenter EQA provider collaboration can be carried out and demonstrated benefit for assays with smaller number of participants. In addition, results showed good agreement with the assigned values of the SSC plasma standard. Further exercises for tests performed by only small numbers of laboratories can be planned.

External quality assessments for SARS-CoV-2 genome detection in Austria : Acomparison of the first postpandemic round with results from the pandemic era.

External quality assessment (EQA) schemes provide objective feedback to participating laboratories about the performance of their analytical systems and information about overall regional analytical performance. The EQAs are particularly important during pandemics as they also assess the reliability of individual test results and show opportunities to improve test strategies. With the end of the COVID-19 pandemic, the testing frequency significantly decreased in Austria. Here, we analyzed whether this decrease had an effect on participation and/or performance in SARS-CoV‑2 virus detection EQAs, as compared to the pandemic era. Identical samples were sent to all participating laboratories, and the EQA provider evaluated the agreement of the reported results with defined targets. The EQA was operated under two schemes with identical samples and therefore we analyzed it as asingle EQA round. The performance of testing was reported as true positive ratios, comparing the post-pandemic data to previous rounds. Furthermore, subgroups of participants were analyzed stratified by laboratory type (medical or nonmedical) and the test system format (fully automated or requiring manual steps). While the frequency of false negative results per sample did not change during the 3 years of the pandemic (5.7%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.1-8.4%), an average per sample false negative ratio of 4.3% was observed in the first post-pandemic EQA (0%, 1.8%, and 11% for the 3 positive samples included in the test panel, n = 109 test results per sample). In this first post-pandemic EQA medical laboratories (average 0.4% false negative across 3samples, n = 90) and automated test systems (average 1.2% false negative, n = 261) had lower false negative ratios than nonmedical laboratories (22.8%, n = 19) and manual test systems (16.7%, n = 22). These lower average ratios were due to alow concentration sample, where nonmedical laboratories reported 36.8% and manual test systems 54.5% true positive results. Overall ratios of true positive results were below the mean of all results during the pandemic but were similar to the first round of the pandemic. Alower post-pandemic true positive ratio was associated with specific laboratory types and assay formats, particularly for samples with low concentration. The EQAs will continue to monitor the laboratory performance to ensure the same quality of epidemiological data after the pandemic, even if vigilance has decreased.

Quality control and external quality assessment for the independent clinic-based evaluation of point-of-care testing to detect Chlamydia trachomatis, Neisseria gonorrhoeae and Trichomonas vaginalis in eight countries

BackgroundSexually transmitted infections caused by Chlamydia trachomatis (CT), Neisseria gonorrhoeae (NG) and Trichomonas vaginalis (TV) remain significant global health problems. The World Health Organization (WHO) has recently conducted a multi-faceted, multi-country validation study (ProSPeRo), which included an evaluation of the Xpert CT/NG and Xpert TV assays on the GeneXpert system (Cepheid, Sunnyvale, Ca., USA) in clinic-based settings across eight countries. To support the study, a training and quality management system was implemented and evaluated.MethodsA comprehensive training program for the study was developed. Quality control (QC) and external quality assessment (EQA) samples were provided by an accredited quality assurance provider. QC testing was conducted at 14 point-of-care testing (POCT) clinics, while EQA samples were tested by the POCT sites and a reference laboratory supporting each clinic.ResultsFor QC testing, concordance with the expected results for CT and NG was > 99% and rates of unsuccessful tests were < 4%. For TV testing, concordance was similar (97%), but rates of unsuccessful tests were high (18%), particularly in the ‘TV negative’ sample. For EQA testing initially conducted in 2018, concordance was 100% for CT and NG, and 90% for TV for the reference laboratory group (which used non-GeneXpert systems). Concordance for the POCT group was also high (> 94%) for all analytes, but this cohort (which used GeneXpert systems) exhibited a high rate of unsuccessful TV tests. All but one of these unsuccessful tests was subcategorised as ‘invalid’.ConclusionsThe high level of concordance for QC and EQA testing confirm that the trained operators at the POC clinical sites were competent to conduct POC testing and that the training and quality systems implemented for the ProSPeRo study were effective. The quality materials used were satisfactory for CT and NG but exhibited poor performance for TV testing on the GeneXpert system. The WHO should continue to work with industry and EQA providers to provide improved materials that are reliable, stable and cost effective for quality management, as it seeks to rollout molecular-based STI POCT in non-laboratory-based settings.Trial registrationEthics approval to conduct the ProSPeRo study was granted by the WHO Ethics Review Committee.

Investigating the Current Harmonization Status of Tumor Markers Using Global External Quality Assessment Programs: A Feasibility Study.

The harmonization status of most tumor markers (TMs) is unknown. We report a feasibility study performed to determine whether external quality assessment (EQA) programs can be used to obtain insights into the current harmonization status of the tumor markers α-fetoprotein (AFP), prostate specific antigen (PSA), carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), cancer antigen (CA)125, CA15-3 and CA19-9. EQA sample results provided by 6 EQA providers (INSTAND [Germany], Korean Association of External Quality Assessment Service [KEQAS, South Korea], National Center for Clinical Laboratories [NCCL, China], United Kingdom National External Quality Assessment Service [UK NEQAS, United Kingdom], Stichting Kwaliteitsbewaking Medische Laboratoriumdiagnostiek [SKML, the Netherlands], and the Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia Quality Assurance Programs [RCPAQAP, Australia]) between 2020 and 2021 were used. The consensus means, calculated from the measurement procedures present in all EQA programs (Abbott Alinity, Beckman Coulter DxI, Roche Cobas, and Siemens Atellica), was used as reference values. Per measurement procedure, the relative difference between consensus mean for each EQA sample and the mean of all patient-pool-based EQA samples were calculated and compared to minimum, desirable, and optimal allowable bias criteria based on biological variation. Between 19040 (CA15-3) and 25398 (PSA) individual results and 56 (PSA) to 76 (AFP) unique EQA samples were included in the final analysis. The mean differences with the consensus mean of patient-pool-based EQA samples for all measurement procedures were within the optimum bias criterion for AFP, the desirable bias for PSA, and the minimum bias criterion for CEA. However, CEA results <8 µg/L exceeded the minimum bias criterion. For CA125, CA15-3, and CA19-9, the harmonization status was outside the minimum bias criterion, with systematic differences identified. This study provides relevant information about the current harmonization status of 6 tumor markers. A pilot harmonization investigation for CEA, CA125, CA15-3, and CA19-9 would be desirable.

Ensuring diagnostic testing accuracy for patient care and public health- COVID-19 testing scale-up from an EQA provider's perspective.

In response to the coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19) and scale up of diagnostic testing, the Canadian Microbiology Proficiency Testing program created a new proficiency testing (PT) program for the molecular and antigen detection of SARS-CoV-2. The program was geared to point of care testing (POCT) sites located in each of the eight provincial Health Authorities across British Columbia, Canada, with the intention to monitor testing quality. The PT program consisted of 6 shipments in a year, each containing a set of 4 samples either positive for SARS-CoV-2 virus or negative. The program began with initial 23 sites enrolling in March 2021, expanding to >100 participants by December 2021. After the first two surveys, it was observed that testing performance (accuracy) was consistently acceptable for sites using nucleic acid technology (NAT), however performance by sites using rapid antigen detection (RAD) methods was poor, especially when testing the weakly positive samples. A root cause investigation of poor testing performance revealed gaps in the execution of testing methods and also in results interpretation. These quality issues were most commonly associated with new testers who lacked experience with diagnostic testing. Tester training and mentoring was reinforced as was retraining of personnel; sample processing instructions were modified, and a training video was also created for testing sites. As a result of these interventions, sites improved their testing accuracy and the performance of POCT sites using RAD methods came to more closely match the performance of sites utilizing NAT. Overall, the PT program was highly successfully and improved quality of testing in the province. This work demonstrates the critical value of an external quality assessment (EQA) partner towards improving patient and public health and safety, especially when testing is conducted outside of an accredited medical laboratory setting.

Implementation of circulating tumour DNA multi-target mutation testing in plasma: a perspective from an external quality assessment providers' survey.

Demand for large-scale tumour profiling across cancer types has increased in recent years, driven by the emergence of targeted drug therapies. Analysing alternations in plasma circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) for cancer detection can improve survival; ctDNA testing is recommended when tumour tissue is unavailable. An online survey of molecular pathology testing was circulated by six external quality assessment members of IQN Path to registered laboratories and all IQN Path collaborative corporate members. Data from 275 laboratories across 45 countries were collected; 245 (89%) perform molecular pathology testing, including 177 (64%) which perform plasma ctDNA diagnostic service testing. The most common tests were next-generation sequencing-based (n = 113). Genes with known stratified treatment options, including KRAS (n = 97), NRAS (n = 84), and EGFR (n = 130), were common targets. The uptake of ctDNA plasma testing and plans to implement further testing demonstrates the importance of support from a well-designed EQA scheme.

The Significance of External Quality Assessment Schemes for Molecular Testing in Clinical Laboratories.

Simple SummaryPatients and clinicians often rely on the outcome of laboratory tests, but can we really trust these test results? Good quality management is key for laboratories to guarantee reliable test results. This review focusses on external quality assessment (EQA) schemes which are a tool for laboratories to examine and improve the quality of their testing routines. In this review, an overview of the role and importance of EQA schemes for clinical laboratories is given, and different types of EQA schemes and EQA providers available on the market are discussed, as well as recent developments in the EQA landscape.External quality assessment (EQA) schemes are a tool for clinical laboratories to evaluate and manage the quality of laboratory practice with the support of an independent party (i.e., an EQA provider). Depending on the context, there are different types of EQA schemes available, as well as various EQA providers, each with its own field of expertise. In this review, an overview of the general requirements for EQA schemes and EQA providers based on international guidelines is provided. The clinical and scientific value of these kinds of schemes for clinical laboratories, clinicians and patients are highlighted, in addition to the support EQA can provide to other types of laboratories, e.g., laboratories affiliated to biotech companies. Finally, recent developments and challenges in laboratory medicine and quality management, for example, the introduction of artificial intelligence in the laboratory and the shift to a more individual-approach instead of a laboratory-focused approach, are discussed. EQA schemes should represent current laboratory practice as much as possible, which poses the need for EQA providers to introduce latest laboratory innovations in their schemes and to apply up-to-date guidelines. By incorporating these state-of-the-art techniques, EQA aims to contribute to continuous learning.

Results of a worldwide external quality assessment of cfDNA testing in lung Cancer

BackgroundCirculating cell free DNA (cfDNA) testing of plasma for EGFR somatic variants in lung cancer patients is being widely implemented and with any new service, external quality assessment (EQA) is required to ensure patient safety. An international consortium, International Quality Network for Pathology (IQNPath), has delivered a second round of assessment to measure the accuracy of cfDNA testing for lung cancer and the interpretation of the results.MethodsA collaboration of five EQA provider organisations, all members of IQNPath, have delivered the assessment during 2018–19 to a total of 264 laboratories from 45 countries. Bespoke plasma reference material containing a range of EGFR mutations at varying allelic frequencies were supplied to laboratories for testing and reporting according to routine procedures. The genotyping accuracy and clinical reporting was reviewed against standardised criteria and feedback was provided to participants.ResultsThe overall genotyping error rate in the EQA was found to be 11.1%. Low allelic frequency samples were the most challenging and were not detected by some testing methods, resulting in critical genotyping errors. This was reflected in higher false negative rates for samples with variant allele frequencies (VAF) rates less than 1.5% compared to higher frequencies. A sample with two different EGFR mutations gave inconsistent detection of both mutations. However, for one sample, where two variants were present at a VAF of less than 1% then both mutations were correctly detected in 145/263 laboratories. Reports often did not address the risk that tumour DNA may have not been tested and limitations of the methodologies provided by participants were insufficient. This was reflected in the average interpretation score for the EQA being 1.49 out of a maximum of 2.ConclusionsThe variability in the standard of genotyping and reporting highlighted the need for EQA and educational guidance in this field to ensure the delivery of high-quality clinical services where testing of cfDNA is the only option for clinical management.

External quality assessment providers' services appear to more impact the immunohaematology performance of laboratories than national regulatory and economic conditions.

Medical laboratories may, at their own discretion, exceed but not undercut regulatory quality requirements. Available economic resources, however, may drive or hinder eagerness to exceed minimum requirements. Depending on the respective scopes of regulatory and economic framework conditions, differing levels of quality efforts to safeguard laboratory performance can be anticipated. However, this has not yet been investigated. Immunohaematology external quality assessment (EQA) results collected by 26 EQA providers from their participant laboratories in 73 countries from 2004 to 2019 were evaluated. Error rates were aggregated in groups according to the respective national regulatory and economic framework conditions, to whether or not expert advice was provided in case of incorrect results, and the frequency of EQA samples. These representative data indicate no association between national regulatory (mandatory participation in EQA, monitoring of performance of individual laboratories by authorities, financial consequences of incorrect results) and economic (level of national income, share of national health expenditure) conditions to the quality performance of medical laboratories in immunohaematology. However, EQA providers' support for laboratories in the event of incorrect results appear to be associated with lower error rates, but a high EQA sample frequency with higher error rates. Further research into the impact of introducing or changing services of EQA providers is needed to confirm the results found in this first of its kind study.

A localized small-scale external quality assessment (EQA) for PCR testing of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in the molecular laboratories

The aim of this study was to estimate the PCR results for SARS-CoV-2 testing in 32 participating laboratories in a localized small-scale external quality assessment (EQA) scheme. EQA samples were distributed to the participants and detected immediately on the day of delivery. Qualitative results were submitted to the EQA provider, including negative or positive results along with cycle threshold (Ct) values for different target genes. Although the variability of Ct values differed among the laboratories in the EQA, a total of 32 (100 %) participants reported correct qualitative results. The study showed that the mean loads of N or E gene were higher than those of ORF1ab in SARS-CoV-2 RNA samples. Regardless of the analyzed gene target, the mean Ct values for weak positive and positive samples varied by fewer than 1.74 and 1.91 cycles, respectively. Less than 12 % of reported Ct values for ORF1ab and N genes deviated by more than ±4 cycles (maximum: −9.92 cycles), while none deviated by more than ±4 cycles for the E gene. The current EQA program can provide a robust practical basis for follow-up planning to conduct evaluations for SARS-CoV-2 PCR testing and other novel emerging pathogens in the future.

Evaluation of the necessity and the feasibility of the standardization of procalcitonin measurements: Activities of IFCC WG-PCT with involvement of all stakeholders

Procalcitonin (PCT) is an important biomarker for sepsis diagnosis and management. To date, there is no higher-order reference measurement procedure (RMP) and certified reference material to achieve global standardization of results and results traceability to the SI units. Although efforts have been made to harmonize PCT results, a number of comparison studies and external quality assessment (EQA) schemes show conflicting results regarding results comparability and to date, equivalence of PCT results across the assays remains questionable in absence of studies relying on commutable EQA materials. In this context, the IFCC initiated activities to fill these gaps through the creation of the working group on standardization of PCT assays that gathers experts from National Metrology Institutes, calibration laboratories, clinicians, biologists, EQA providers and assay manufacturers. Among the activities, a higher order RMP and commutable reference materials are under development to build a robust reference measurement system (RMS). A commutability study is being organized to identify EQA materials that are fit for purpose to reliably estimate the current comparability of PCT results. This work will make it possible to evaluate the necessity and the feasibility for establishing and maintaining a new RMS for PCT assays, if deemed necessary.

Causes behind error rates for predictive biomarker testing: the utility of sending post-EQA surveys

External quality assessment (EQA) schemes assess the performance of predictive biomarker testing in lung and colorectal cancer and have previously demonstrated variable error rates. No information is currently available on the underlying causes of incorrect EQA results in the laboratories. Participants in EQA schemes by the European Society of Pathology between 2014 and 2018 for lung and colorectal cancer were contacted to complete a survey if they had at least one analysis error or test failure in the provided cases. Of the 791 surveys that were sent, 325 were completed including data from 185 unique laboratories on 514 incorrectly analyzed or failed cases. For the digital cases and immunohistochemistry, the majority of errors were interpretation-related. For fluorescence in situ hybridization, problems with the EQA materials were reported frequently. For variant analysis, the causes were mainly methodological for lung cancer but variable for colorectal cancer. Post-analytical (clerical and interpretation) errors were more likely detected after release of the EQA results compared to pre-analytical and analytical issues. Accredited laboratories encountered fewer reagent problems and more often responded to the survey. A recent change in test methodology resulted in method-related problems. Testing more samples annually introduced personnel errors and lead to a lower performance in future schemes. Participation to quality improvement projects is important to reduce deviating test results in laboratories, as the different error causes differently affect the test performance. EQA providers could benefit from requesting root cause analyses behind errors to offer even more tailored feedback, subschemes, and cases.

Theoretic and practical contribution of bayesian inference to statistical process control: The experience of the Lyon Hospitals Board hemostasis laboratory

Laboratories need to set up effective overall management of their internal quality control (IQC) and external quality assessment (EQA) results as key elements in statistical process control. Quality targets need to be defined, with methods to ensure durable control with respect to the relevant specifications. The hemostasis laboratory of the Lyon Hospitals Board (HCL, Lyon, France) uses model 3 from the Milan consensus conference, which is the state of the art in terms of quality targets, and uses a common EQA provider supplying as many real patient samples as possible. Giving priority to adopted methods, the lab optimizes the use of manufacturers' prior data: maximum acceptable inter assay coefficient of variation (CV) and prior IQC target values. Bayesian inference brings the method under control with respect to the manufacturers' prior data without the need for a preliminary phase. It links the IQC and EQA plans by the maximum acceptable CVs defined by the manufacturer.

Study of total error specifications of lymphocyte subsets enumeration using China National EQAS data and Biological Variation Data Critical Appraisal Checklist (BIVAC)-compliant publications.

It is important to select proper quality specifications for laboratories and external quality assessment (EQA) providers for their quality control and assessment. The aim of this study is to produce new total error (TE) specifications for lymphocyte subset enumeration by analyzing the allowable TE using EQAS data and comparing them with that based on reliable biological variation (BV). A total of 54,400 results from 1,716 laboratories were collected from China National EQAS for lymphocyte subset enumeration during the period 2017-2019. The EQA data were grouped according to lower limits of reference intervals for establishing concentration-dependent specifications. The TE value that 80% of laboratories can achieve were considered as TE specifications based on state of the art. The BV studies compliant with Biological Variation Data Critical Appraisal Checklist (BIVAC) were used to calculate the three levels of TE specifications. Then these TE specifications were compared for determining the recommended TE specifications. Four parameters whose quality specifications could achieve the optimum criteria were as follows: the percentages of CD3+, CD3+CD4+ (high concentration) and CD3-CD16/56+ cells, and the absolute count of CD3-CD16/56+ cells. Only the TE specifications of CD3-CD19+ cells could achieve the minimum criteria. The TE specifications of remaining parameters should reach the desirable criteria. New TE specifications were established by combining the EQA data and reliable BV data, which could help laboratories to apply proper criteria for continuous improvement of quality control, and EQA providers to use robust acceptance limits for better evaluation of EQAS results.

Harmonising EQA schemes the next frontier: challenging the status quo.

There is a focus on standardisation and harmonisation of laboratory results to reduce the risk of misinterpretation of patient results assayed in different laboratories. External quality assessment (EQA) is critical to assess the need for harmonisation and to monitor the success of procedures to achieve harmonisation. However, EQA providers are being stretched to meet the needs of their participants with proven commutable material with reference method targets, a range of clinically significant levels of the materials, detailed and customised data analysis, and educational support. The path ahead for harmonisation of EQA schemes will require leadership from an organisation that has the support and confidence of EQA providers, like the European Organisation for External Qualily Assurance Providers in Laboratory Medicine.

Sensitive detection methods are key to identify secondary EGFR c.2369C>T p.(Thr790Met) in non-small cell lung cancer tissue samples

BackgroundCorrect identification of the EGFR c.2369C>T p.(Thr790Met) variant is key to decide on a targeted therapeutic strategy for patients with acquired EGFR TKI resistance in non-small cell lung cancer. The aim of this study was to evaluate the correct detection of this variant in 12 tumor tissue specimens tested by 324 laboratories participating in External Quality Assessment (EQA) schemes.MethodsData from EQA schemes were evaluated between 2013 and 2018 from cell lines (6) and resections (6) containing the EGFR c.2369C>T p.(Thr790Met) mutation. Adequate performance was defined as the percentage of tests for which an outcome was available and correct. Additional data on the used test method were collected from the participants. Chi-squared tests on contingency tables and a biserial rank correlation were applied by IBM SPSS Statistics version 25 (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA).ResultsIn 26 of the 1190 tests (2.2%) a technical failure occurred. For the remaining 1164 results, 1008 (86.6%) were correct, 151 (12.9%) were false-negative and 5 (0.4%) included incorrect mutations. Correct p.(Thr790Met) detection improved over time and for repeated scheme participations. In-house non-next-generation sequencing (NGS) techniques performed worse (81.1%, n = 293) compared to non-NGS commercial kits (85.2%, n = 656) and NGS (97.0%, n = 239). Over time there was an increase in the users of NGS. Resection specimens performed worse (82.6%, n = 610 tests) compared to cell line material (90.9%, n = 578 tests), except for NGS (96.3%, n = 344 for resections and 98.6%, n = 312 for cell lines). Samples with multiple mutations were more difficult compared to samples with the single p.(Thr790Met) variant. A change of the test method was shown beneficial to reduce errors but introduced additional analysis failures.ConclusionsA significant number of laboratories that offer p.(Thr790Met) testing did not detect this relevant mutation compared to the other EQA participants. However, correct identification of this variant is improving over time and was higher for NGS users. Revising the methodology might be useful to resolve errors, especially for resection specimens with low frequency or multiple variants. EQA providers should include challenging resections in the scheme.

External quality assessment for molecular diagnostic laboratories in Belgium: Can we improve it?

External quality assessment (EQA) is an essential part of performance monitoring for molecular laboratories. At the moment, a national law regulates participation in EQA schemes for clinical biology and pathology in Belgium. This study aimed (1) to get insights on how laboratories organize their EQA participation, (2) to poll satisfaction with the current situation (selection of EQA programs in advance by a governmental body), (3) to provide guidance for choosing the most relevant EQA provider and (4) to propose a new model for national performance monitoring. A survey was sent to Belgian laboratories performing molecular tests in the field of microbiology, hematology and pathology with (1) general questions on how they select an EQA provider and (2) their satisfaction of each provider. In total, 25 molecular laboratories [microbiology (N = 13), hematology (N = 8) and pathology (N = 4)] from 14 different hospitals completed the survey regarding their EQA organization. All three laboratory groups indicated to prefer EQA schemes using real patient materials as well as those with varying targets and concentrations. For molecular microbiology and hematology, schemes with a syndromic approach are sought. Since annual participation in EQA becomes burdensome in most laboratories, this paper also offers a risk-based strategy for determining the participation frequency. Based on the needs of Belgian laboratories, three proposals were made: (1) for the proper selection of an EQA scheme, (2) for determining the minimal participation frequency and (3) for the national organization of EQA schemes.

Variation in nomenclature of somatic variants for selection of oncological therapies: Can we reach a consensus soon?

A standardized nomenclature for reporting oncology biomarker variants is key to avoid misinterpretation of results and unambiguous registration in clinical databases. External quality assessment (EQA) schemes have revealed a need for more consistent nomenclature use in clinical genetics. We evaluated the propensity of EQA for improvement of compliance with Human Genome Variation Society (HGVS) recommendations for reporting of predictive somatic variants in lung and colorectal cancer. Variant entries between 2012 and 2018 were collected from written reports and electronic results sheets. In total, 4,053 variants were assessed, of which 12.1% complied with HGVS recommendations. Compliance improved over time from 2.1% (2012) to 22.3% (2018), especially when laboratories participated in multiple EQA schemes. Compliance was better for next‐generation sequencing (20.9%) compared with targeted techniques (9.8%). In the 1792 reports, HGVS recommendations for reference sequences were met for 31.9% of reports, for 36.0% of noncommercial, and 26.5% of commercial test methods. Compliance improved from 16.7% (2012) to 33.1% (2018), and after repeated EQA participation. EQA participation improves compliance with HGVS recommendations. The residual percentage of errors in the most recent schemes suggests that laboratories, companies, and EQA providers need to collaborate for additional improvement of harmonization in clinical test reporting.