RESUMO
CONTEXT.: In 2018 the College of American Pathologists Diagnostic Immunology and Flow Cytometry Committee designed and implemented a new plasma cell neoplasia flow cytometry proficiency testing program-PCNEO-to allow clinical flow cytometry laboratories to monitor and assess their performance compared with a peer group. OBJECTIVE.: To report the results from the first 4 years of the PCNEO program. DESIGN.: Program participants were sent 2 sets of challenges per year, each including 1 wet challenge and 2 dry challenges, with associated clinical and laboratory findings. The wet challenges were composed of myeloma cell line specimens (with or without dilution in preserved whole blood) for flow cytometric analysis. The dry (paper) challenges were composed of clinical case summaries and images of flow cytometric test results from various flow cytometry laboratories of committee members. RESULTS.: A total of 116 to 145 laboratories from 17 countries enrolled in the proficiency testing program. For the wet challenges, almost all participants (97%-100%; cumulative, 98.2%) correctly identified the presence of neoplastic plasma cell populations based on flow cytometric analysis of undiluted myeloma cell lines. Slightly fewer participants (89.0%-97.4%; cumulative, 95.2%) correctly identified the presence of neoplastic plasma cell populations based on flow cytometric analysis of diluted myeloma cell lines (10% or 50% dilutions into peripheral blood) intended to better represent a typical clinical sample. There was generally agreement among 80% or more of participants for positive or negative staining for CD38, CD138, CD19, CD20, and surface and cytoplasmic κ and λ light chains. Similarly, 84% to 100% of participants were able to correctly identify the presence of neoplastic plasma cell populations in paper challenges, including the presence of small, neoplastic plasma cell populations (0.01%-5.0% clonal plasma cells), or the presence of nonneoplastic plasma cell populations (correctly identified by 91%-96% of participants). CONCLUSIONS.: Participant performance in the new proficiency testing program was excellent overall, with the vast majority of participants able to perform flow cytometric analysis and identify neoplastic plasma cell populations, and to identify small plasma cell clones or expanded populations of reactive plasma cells in dry challenge flow cytometry results. This program will allow laboratories to verify the accuracy of their testing program and test interpretations for the assessment of patients suspected of having a plasma cell neoplasm.
RESUMO
CONTEXT.: Minimal residual disease (MRD) testing by flow cytometry is ubiquitous in hematolymphoid neoplasm monitoring, especially B-lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL), for which it provides predictive information and guides management. Major heterogeneity was identified in 2014. Subsequently, new Flow Cytometry Checklist items required documentation of the sensitivity determination method and required lower level of detection (LLOD) inclusion in final reports. This study assesses Laboratory Accreditation Program (LAP) participation and new checklist items' impact on flow cytometry MRD testing. OBJECTIVES.: To survey flow cytometry laboratories about MRD testing for B-ALL and plasma cell myeloma. In particular, enumerate the laboratories performing MRD testing, the proportion performing assays with very low LLODs, and implementation of new checklist items. DESIGN.: Supplemental questions were distributed in the 2017-A mailing to 548 flow cytometry laboratories subscribed to the College of American Pathologists FL3 Proficiency Testing Survey (Flow Cytometry-Immunophenotypic Characterization of Leukemia/Lymphoma). RESULTS.: The percentage of laboratories performing MRD studies has significantly decreased since 2014. Wide ranges of LLOD and collection event numbers were reported for B-ALL and plasma cell myeloma. Most laboratories determine LLOD by using dilutional studies and include it in final reports; a higher proportion of LAP participants used these practices than nonparticipants. CONCLUSIONS.: Several MRD testing aspects vary among laboratories receiving FL3 Proficiency Testing materials. After the survey in 2014, new checklist items were implemented. As compared to 2014, fewer laboratories are performing MRD studies. While LLOD remains heterogeneous, a high proportion of LAP subscribers follow the new checklist requirements and, overall, target LLOD recommendations from disease-specific working groups are met.