External quality assessment to support the WHO ProSPeRo study for the evaluation of two dual HIV/syphilis point-of-care tests in seven countries.

BACKGROUND: Sexually transmitted infections (STIs) such as syphilis and HIV remain to be a significant public health issue worldwide. Dual rapid point-of-care tests (POCTs) have shown promise for detecting antibodies to HIV and syphilis but have not been fully evaluated in the field. Our study supported the WHO ProSPeRo study on Sexually Transmitted Infection Point-of-Care Testing (STI POCT) by providing external quality assessment (EQA) for HIV and syphilis testing in reference laboratories and their associated clinical sites in seven countries. METHODS: HIV/syphilis serum liquid and dried tube specimen (DTS) panels were prepared by CDC. Liquid panels were distributed to the reference laboratories for three rounds of testing using commercially and locally available laboratory-based serological tests. DTS panels were sent to the clinical testing sites for 8 rounds of POC testing using the Abbott SD BIOLINE HIV/Syphilis Duo test (hereafter referred to as SD BIOLINE) and the Chembio Dual Path Platform (DPP) HIV-Syphilis assay. EQA panels were tested at CDC using the Rapid Plasma Reagin (RPR) test and the Treponema pallidum Particle Agglutination assay (TP-PA) for syphilis antibodies. Genetic Systems HIV-1/HIV-2 Plus O EIA, Geenius HIV Supplemental Assay and the Oraquick Advance HIV test were used to detect HIV antibodies in the EQA panels. Results from the reference laboratories and POCT sites were compared to those obtained at the CDC and a percentage agreement was calculated. RESULTS: Qualitative RPR and TP-PA performed at the reference laboratories demonstrated 95.4-100% agreement with CDC results while quantitative RPR and TP-PA tests demonstrated 87.7% and 89.2% agreement, respectively. A 93.8% concordance rate was observed for qualitative HIV testing in laboratories. EQA testing at clinical sites using dual tests showed 98.7% and 99.1% agreement for detection of HIV antibodies and eight out of 10 sites had > 95.8% agreement for syphilis testing. However, two clinical sites showed only 65.0-66.7% agreement for SD BIOLINE and 84.0-86.7% for DPP, respectively, for syphilis testing. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, laboratories demonstrated high EQA performance in this study. Both HIV/syphilis POCTs gave expected results in the clinic-based evaluations using DTS. However, testing errors were identified in a few testing sites suggesting the necessity for continuous training and monitoring the quality of POC testing.

Quality control in the Netherlands; todays practices and starting points for guidance and future research.

OBJECTIVES: Adequate analytical quality of reported results is primarily ensured by performing internal quality control (iQC). Currently, several different iQC practices are in use. As a prelude to the revision of a Dutch guidance document on analytical QC, a questionnaire was sent out to gain insights in the applied practices and the need for guidance. METHODS: A questionnaire, containing 20 multiple-choice questions with possibilities for explanation and comment on iQC practices and aspects was distributed to all clinical chemistry laboratories within the Netherlands. Results were reported descriptively. RESULTS: Responses were received from 27 clinical laboratories (response 43 %). In 30 % the iQC was based on the analytical characteristics only, while 30 % used a 6-Sigma method, 19 % risk-based beyond 6-Sigma and 22 % used an alternative approach. 89 % of laboratories used a virtual analyzer model for iQC setup within one or more laboratory sites. Practices for determining standard deviation (SD) values included determining SD for each new iQC material (35 %), using historical SD values for new materials (35 %), and incorporating clinical tolerances into the SD value (31 %). Furthermore, 44 % of laboratories used patient moving averages for one or more tests. Daily iQC management was based on either "traffic lights" indicating in or out of control status, and review of all QC charts, often using multiple software systems. CONCLUSIONS: A large heterogeneity of iQC practices in clinical laboratories was observed in the Netherlands. Several starting points for further research and/or guidance were identified, particularly in relation to the determination of SD values, the virtual analyzer model and methods to ensure analyzer equivalence.

Understanding the limitations of your assay using EQA data with serum creatinine as an example.

OBJECTIVES: Laboratories need to take into consideration the specificity and imprecision of assays not only in verification, but also of quality assessment. This study investigates the composition of serum used in EQA materials by comparing material from a single and multiple donors (pooled material), across multiple methods, using creatinine as an example. METHODS: Sixteen different serum matrices were distributed as 36 specimens through the UK NEQAS for Acute and Chronic Kidney Disease Scheme from March 2022 to March 2023. Male-only and female-only serum was used as single donations, pooled donations, unmanipulated or with added exogenous creatinine. Specimens were distributed to primarily UK participants (approximately n=500) for creatinine analysis. Data has been reviewed by method compared to the enzymatic creatinine method principle mean. RESULTS: From the 16 different matrices, only the enzymatic creatinine assay systems from Roche Cobas and Siemens Atellica met the minimum acceptable bias goal, from biological data, of 5.6 %, in all specimens. Pooled material showed less variation in bias across all methods. CONCLUSIONS: Since Laboratories invest a lot of time and money in quality management, they need to know the limitations of their assays so that they are not investigating 'apparent' EQA/IQC problems which are purely due to non-specific, imprecise assay, rather than an analytical issue in their laboratory. When large numbers of individual donations are combined, interferents are essentially diluted out. Therefore, if EQA material is of this type it will be very difficult to determine the actual assay's bias and variability.

Establishing an External Quality Assessment (EQA) Program for Urinalysis in Medical Laboratories of Thailand.

Thailand Association of Clinical Biochemists (TACB) introduced External Quality Assurance schemes (EQAs) for urinalysis (UA) using urine strips in medical laboratories of Thailand. The few available External Quality Assessment (EQA) programs on urinary microalbumin rarely include an evaluation of clinical cases. The aim of the present study was to assess a descriptive analysis of biochemical urinalysis including urine microalbumin in the Thailand laboratory practice. From January 2021 to December 2021, four surveys were organized. EQA urine samples were distributed to the participants by mail. The participants measured the UA of 2 samples quarterly and returned the results together with the information about their instruments and suggestion for the performance of the laboratory report quarterly. Moreover, summary of the situation of each laboratory performance was feedbacked by online system. Fifty-eight laboratories participated in the survey. The EQA panels included positive and negative samples. The analytical results for passed parameters of urine chemical test range from 79.3-100%. All special tests; microalbumin, creatinine, and beta-HCG showed correct result from 85.1-96.1%. The overall accuracy, specificity, and sensitivity were 92.6, 85.7, and 75,4%, respectively. The major issues were observed: the low sensitivity for the detection of low-concentration samples and the incapacity of several methods to detect the positive sample. The assessment is needed to continuously evaluate the improvement proficiency of laboratories in Thailand.

Pre-analytical conditions and implementation of quality control steps in liquid biopsy analysis.

Over the last decade, great advancements have been made in the field of liquid biopsy through extensive research and the development of new technologies that facilitate the use of liquid biopsy for cancer patients. This is shown by the numerous liquid biopsy tests that gained clearance by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in recent years. Liquid biopsy has significantly altered cancer treatment by providing clinicians with powerful and immediate information about therapeutic decisions. However, the clinical integration of liquid biopsy is still challenging and there are many critical factors to consider prior to its implementation into routine clinical practice. Lack of standardization due to technical challenges and the definition of the clinical utility of specific assays further complicates the establishment of Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) in liquid biopsy. Harmonization of laboratories to established guidelines is of major importance to overcome inter-lab variabilities observed. Quality control assessment in diagnostic laboratories that offer liquid biopsy testing will ensure that clinicians can base their therapeutic decisions on robust results. The regular participation of laboratories in external quality assessment schemes for liquid biopsy testing aims to promptly pinpoint deficiencies and efficiently educate laboratories to improve their quality of services. Accreditation of liquid biopsy diagnostic laboratories based on the ISO15189 standard in Europe or by CLIA/CAP accreditation procedures in the US is the best way to achieve the adaptation of liquid biopsy into the clinical setting by assuring reliable results for the clinicians and their cancer patients. Nowadays, various organizations from academia, industry, and regulatory agencies collaborate to set a framework that will include all procedures from the pre-analytical phase and the analytical process to the final interpretation of results. In this review, we underline several challenges in the analysis of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) and circulating tumor cells (CTCs) concerning standardization of protocols, quality control assessment, harmonization of laboratories, and compliance to specific guidelines that need to be thoroughly considered before liquid biopsy enters the clinic.

Accessibility and visibility of genetic testing for haemophilia across Europe: Where do we stand?

INTRODUCTION: Haemophilia is characterized by bleeding complications resulting from clotting factor VIII (FVIII) or IX (FIX) deficiency. Identifying the causal pathogenic genetic variant denotes a vital aspect of haemophilia management. AIM: This study evaluated the accessibility and performances of genetic testing for haemophilia across Europe. The types of genetic analyses, techniques used, turn-around time (TAT) and costs were collected and analysed, as were data updating and quality control. METHODS: Reported data were retrieved from open access resources, including international databases, Google, laboratory websites, PubMed and government organizations. RESULTS: Overall, 51 genetic laboratories across 15 European countries providing recently updated molecular haemophilia testing were identified. Gene sequencing for small variants of both F8 and F9 genes was provided in most surveyed laboratories. Almost two-thirds of them offer analysis for inversions using a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) method and detection of copy number variation (CNV) using multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA). Cost and TAT were found to vary considerably. In total, 74% of laboratories exhibited a last modified date or change history. The same percentage of laboratories was in possession of an ISO 15189 standard accreditation, whereas only few of them recently performed external quality assessment schemes (EQA) for haemophilia. CONCLUSION: Despite several initiatives to improve access to genetic testing for haemophilia, such access must still be improved. Our study similarly revealed the large heterogeneity of the variants tested, techniques employed, TAT, cost and quality among the surveyed laboratories.

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

BACKGROUND: Circulating 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. METHODS: A 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. RESULTS: The 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. CONCLUSIONS: The 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.

Advantages of external quality assessment-EQA programs.

INTRODUCTION: The first external quality assessment (EQA) in Thrombosis and Haemostasis was elaborated over 20 years ago, and since then, several national and international EQA institutions have been established. AIM: Display the benefits of EQA programs. METHODS: The spectrum of EQA action was evaluated ranges from improving the performance of the local laboratory to highlighting inadequate diagnostic tests that need to be replaced by new technologies. RESULTS: The first result approach is related to a national management of quality in laboratories. In recent years, Brazil has invested in an EQA program to aid public policy in the laboratory area. During this period, a group of haemostasis laboratory specialists were invited to manage the results and help the Ministry of Health with applying these results as a strategy to improve laboratories. Thus, in collaboration with NEQAS-BC, the University of Campinas - UNICAMP, established a Brazilian EQA program for Blood Coagulation. The second result approach is related to FVIII inhibitor assay performance evaluation, which is another type of EQA program benefit. Despite the assay being considered the gold standard to measure neutralised immunoglobulins for FVIII since 1975, over 40 years ago, the test still has a high coefficient of variation. Results from NEQAS-BC and WFH IEQAS program demonstrate the inter-laboratory variation across the United Kingdom over the last years and among emergent countries. CONCLUSION: The EQA programs have an important educational role in helping countries manage their public policy and in the international inquiry regarding the necessity of new technologies in haemostasis.

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

OBJECTIVES: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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.

External quality assessment of serum indices: Spanish SEQC-ML program.

OBJECTIVES: Serum indices included in clinical chemistry instruments are widely used by laboratories to assess the quality of samples. Instruments that report quantitative results allow an evaluation of their diagnostic performance in a similar way to other biochemical tests. The Spanish Society of Laboratory Medicine (SEQC-ML) launched a monthly External Quality program of serum indices in 2018 using three lyophilized materials of simultaneous annual distribution. We present the results of the first three years of the program. METHODS: The use of four different quality control materials with different concentrations in three alternate months allows an annual evaluation of the participant's accuracy. Assigned values are established by consensus among homogeneous groups, considering necessary at least 10 participants for a comparison at instrument level. The average percentage difference results per instrument allow the assessment of bias among groups. RESULTS: The imprecision of the three indices ranges between 3 and 9%, with no major differences among instruments. Significant differences were observed in all indices among instruments with more than 10 participants (Roche Cobas, Abbott Architect, Abbott Alinity and Siemens Advia). The 90th percentile of the distribution of percentage differences was used as the analytical performance specification (APS). An improvement in performance was observed in the first three years of the program, probably due to the learning curve effect. In 2020, APS of 7.8, 12.2 and 9.7% were proposed for hemolytic, icteric and lipemic indices, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Serum indices have a great impact on the quality and the reliability of laboratory test results. Participation in proficiency testing programs for serum indices is helpful to encourage harmonization among providers and laboratories.

Inadequate design of mutation detection panels prevents interpretation of variants of concern: results of an external quality assessment for SARS-CoV-2 variant detection.

OBJECTIVES: Mutation-specific PCR assays have quickly found their way into laboratory diagnostics due to their capacity to be a fast, easy to implement and high-throughput method for the detection of known SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern (VoCs). However, little is known about the performance of such assays in routine laboratory analysis. METHODS: The results reported in a recent round of an external quality assessment (EQA) scheme for SARS-CoV-2 mutation-specific PCR were retrospectively analyzed. For the determination of individual variant-specific sequences as well as for the interpretation results for certain virus variants, correct, incorrect, and unreported results were evaluated, and their possible causes were investigated. RESULTS: A total of 34 laboratories participated in this study. For five samples containing the VoC Alpha + E484K, Beta, Gamma, Delta, or B.1.1.318 (as a variant of interest), 848 results for SARS-2-CoV mutation detection were reported, 824 (97.2%, range per sample 88-100%) of which were correct. Melting curve assays gave 99% correct results, real-time RT-qPCR 94%, microarray-based assays 100%, and MALDI-TOF MS 96%. A total of 122/167 (73%) reported results for SARS-CoV-2 variant determination were correct. Of the 45 inconclusive or incorrect results, 33 (73%) were due to inadequate selection of targets that did not allow identification of contemporary VoC, 11 (24%) were due to incorrect results, and one (3%) was due to correct results of mutation-specific PCR. CONCLUSIONS: Careful and up-to-date selection of the targets used in mutation-specific PCR is essential for successful detection of current SARS-CoV-2 variants.

External quality assessment of SARS-CoV-2 serology in European expert laboratories, April 2021.

BackgroundCountries worldwide are focusing to mitigate the ongoing SARS-CoV-2 pandemic by employing public health measures. Laboratories have a key role in the control of SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Serology for SARS-CoV-2 is of critical importance to support diagnosis, define the epidemiological framework and evaluate immune responses to natural infection and vaccine administration.AimThe aim of this study was the assessment of the actual capability among laboratories involved in sero-epidemiological studies on COVID-19 in EU/EEA and EU enlargement countries to detect SARS-CoV-2 antibodies through an external quality assessment (EQA) based on proficiency testing.MethodsThe EQA panels were composed of eight different, pooled human serum samples (all collected in 2020 before the vaccine roll-out), addressing sensitivity and specificity of detection. The panels and two EU human SARS-CoV-2 serological standards were sent to 56 laboratories in 30 countries.ResultsThe overall performance of laboratories within this EQA indicated a robust ability to establish past SARS-CoV-2 infections via detection of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, with 53 of 55 laboratories using at least one test that characterised all EQA samples correctly. IgM-specific test methods provided most incorrect sample characterisations (24/208), while test methods detecting total immunoglobulin (0/119) and neutralising antibodies (2/230) performed the best. The semiquantitative assays used by the EQA participants also showed a robust performance in relation to the standards.ConclusionOur EQA showed a high capability across European reference laboratories for reliable diagnostics for SARS-CoV-2 antibody responses. Serological tests that provide robust and reliable detection of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies are available.

Assessment of droplet digital polymerase chain reaction for measuring BCR-ABL1 in chronic myeloid leukaemia in an international interlaboratory study.

Measurement of BCR activator of RhoGEF and GTPase -ABL proto-oncogene 1, non-receptor tyrosine kinase (BCR-ABL1) mRNA levels by reverse transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RTqPCR) has been critical to treatment protocols and clinical trials in chronic myeloid leukaemia; however, interlaboratory variation remains a significant issue. Reverse transcriptase droplet digital PCR (RTddPCR) has shown potential to improve testing but a large-scale interlaboratory study is required to definitively establish this. In the present study, 10 BCR-ABL1-positive samples with levels ranging from molecular response (MR)1·0 -MR5·0 were tested by 23 laboratories using RTddPCR with the QXDX BCR-ABL %IS kit. A subset of participants tested the samples using RTqPCR. All 23 participants using RTddPCR detected BCR-ABL1 in all samples to MR4·0 . Detection rates for deep-response samples were 95·7% at MR4·5 , 78·3% at MR4·7 and 87·0% at MR5·0 . Interlaboratory coefficient of variation was indirectly proportional to BCR-ABL1 level ranging from 29·3% to 69·0%. Linearity ranged from 0·9330 to 1·000 (average 0·9936). When results were compared for the 11 participants who performed both RTddPCR and RTqPCR, RTddPCR showed a similar limit of detection to RTqPCR with reduced interlaboratory variation and better assay linearity. The ability to detect deep responses with RTddPCR, matched with an improved linearity and reduced interlaboratory variation will allow improved patient management, and is of particular importance for future clinical trials focussed on achieving and maintaining treatment-free remission.

Variable Sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 Molecular Detection in European Expert Laboratories: External Quality Assessment, June and July 2020.

During the ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak, robust detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a key element for clinical management and to interrupt transmission chains. We organized an external quality assessment (EQA) of molecular detection of SARS-CoV-2 for European expert laboratories. An EQA panel composed of 12 samples, containing either SARS-CoV-2 at different concentrations to evaluate sensitivity or other respiratory viruses to evaluate specificity of SARS-CoV-2 testing, was distributed to 68 laboratories in 35 countries. Specificity samples included seasonal human coronaviruses hCoV-229E, hCoV-NL63, and hCoV-OC43, as well as Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV), SARS-CoV, and human influenza viruses A and B. Sensitivity results differed among laboratories, particularly for low-concentration SARS-CoV-2 samples. Results indicated that performance was mostly independent of the selection of specific extraction or PCR methods.

Assessing the Quality of Serological Testing in the COVID-19 Pandemic: Results of a European External Quality Assessment (EQA) Scheme for Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Detection.

External quality assessment (EQA) is a key instrument for achieving harmonization, and thus a high quality, of diagnostic procedures. As reliable test results are crucial for accurate assessment of SARS-CoV-2 infection prevalence, vaccine response, and immunity, and thus for successful management of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, the Reference Institute for Bioanalytics (RfB) was the first EQA provider to offer an open scheme for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody detection. The main objectives of this EQA were (i) to gain insights into the current diagnostic landscape and the performance of serological tests in Europe and (ii) to provide recommendations for diagnostic improvements. Within the EQA, a blinded panel of precharacterized human serum samples with variable anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody titers was provided for detection of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG, IgA, and IgM antibodies. Across the three distribution rounds in 2020, 284 laboratories from 22 countries reported a total of 3,744 results for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody detection using more than 24 different assays for IgG. Overall, 97/3,004 results were false for anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG, 88/248 for IgA, and 34/124 for IgM. Regarding diagnostic sensitivity and specificity, substantial differences were found between the different assays used, as well as between certified and noncertified tests. For cutoff samples, a drop in the diagnostic sensitivity to 46.3% and high interlaboratory variability were observed. In general, this EQA highlights the current variability of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody detection, technical limitations with respect to cutoff samples, and the lack of harmonization of testing procedures. Recommendations are provided to help laboratories and manufacturers further improve the quality of anti-SARS-CoV-2 serological diagnostics.

The versatility of external quality assessment for the surveillance of laboratory and in vitro diagnostic performance: SARS-CoV-2 viral genome detection in Austria.

OBJECTIVES: External quality assessment (EQA) schemes provide information on individual and general analytical performance of participating laboratories and test systems. The aim of this study was to investigate the use and performance of SARS-CoV-2 virus genome detection systems in Austrian laboratories and their preparedness to face challenges associated with the pandemic. METHODS: Seven samples were selected to evaluate performance and estimate variability of reported results. Notably, a dilution series was included in the panel as a measure of reproducibility and sensitivity. Several performance criteria were evaluated for individual participants as well as in the cohort of all participants. RESULTS: A total of 109 laboratories participated and used 134 platforms, including 67 different combinations of extraction and PCR platforms and corresponding reagents. There were no false positives and 10 (1.2%) false negative results, including nine in the weakly positive sample (Ct ∼35.9, ∼640 copies/mL). Twenty (22%) laboratories reported results of mutation detection. Twenty-five (19%) test systems included amplification of human RNA as evidence of proper sampling. The overall linearity of Ct values from individual test systems for the dilution series was good, but inter-assay variability was high. Both operator-related and systematic failures appear to have caused incorrect results. CONCLUSIONS: Beyond providing certification for participating laboratories, EQA provides the opportunity for participants to evaluate their performance against others so that they may improve operating procedures and test systems. Well-selected EQA samples offer additional inferences to be made about assay sensitivity and reproducibility, which have practical applications.

Tumor BRCA testing in ovarian cancer and EQA scheme: our experience of a critical evaluation.

Next generation sequencing (NGS) is a widespread molecular biology method integrated into clinical practice to detect genetic variants, for diagnostic and prognostic purposes. The scheduled external quality assessments (EQA) is integral part of clinical molecular laboratory quality assurance. The EQA provides an efficient system to compare analytic test performances among different laboratories, which is essential to evaluate consistency of molecular test. EQA failures demands targeted corrective action plans. In this context, the complexity of the NGS techniques requires careful and continuous quality control procedures. We report a tumor BRCA1/2 (tBRCA) testing benchmark discrepancy provided by the European Molecular Genetics Quality Network in our laboratory during a round of EQA for somatic mutation testing of BRCA genes in relation to ovarian cancer. The critical analysis emerging from the tBRCA EQA is presented. We underline that harmonization processes are still required for the EQA in the molecular biology field, especially if applied to the evaluation of methods characterized by high complexity.

External quality assessment (EQA) of Neisseria gonorrhoeae antimicrobial susceptibility testing in primary laboratories in Germany.

BACKGROUND: Worldwide, an increase in antimicrobial resistance (AMR) of Neisseria gonorrhoeae has been observed. Until now, no protocol for an external quality assessment (EQA) has been available for Germany. The German gonococcal resistance network (GORENET) performed an EQA of primary laboratories in Germany in order to assess quality of antibiotic susceptibility testing, to gain information about laboratory procedures and to assess the impact of these procedures on test results. METHODS: Laboratories assessed drug susceptibility to cefixime, ceftriaxone, azithromycin, penicillin and ciprofloxacin for five N. gonorrhoeae strains, using their standard laboratory protocols. Minimal inhibitory concentrations (MICs) were compared to World Health Organisation (WHO) consensus results (or, if not available, reference laboratory results), while deviation by +/- one doubling dilution was accepted. Data on laboratory procedures were collected via a standardised questionnaire. Generalized linear models and conditional inference trees (CTREE) were used to assess relationships between laboratory procedures and testing outcomes. RESULTS: Twenty-one primary laboratories participated in the EQA in June 2018. 96% of ciprofloxacin MICs were reported within accepted deviations, as well as 88% for cefixime, 85% for ceftriaxone, 79% for penicillin and 70% for azithromycin. The use of interpretation standards and general laboratory procedures like agar base, incubation settings or the use of control strains strongly differed between laboratories. In statistical analysis, incubation time of cultures < 24 h was associated with correct measurements. Additionally, a 5% CO2 concentration was associated with correct results regarding azithromycin compared to 3%. CTREE analysis showed that incubation time, humidity and CO2 concentration had the greatest influence on the average deviation from consensus results. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, we report the development of a protocol for N. gonorrhoeae antimicrobial susceptibility testing in Germany. While testing results were in accordance with the expected consensus results in 70-96%, depending on the antibiotic agent, laboratory methodology was heterogeneous and may significantly affect the testing quality. We therefore recommend the development of a standard operating procedure (SOP) for N. gonorrhoeae susceptibility testing in Germany.

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.

An evaluation of ten external quality assurance scheme (EQAS) materials for the faecal immunochemical test (FIT) for haemoglobin.

Objectives: External quality assessment schemes (EQAS) are being established worldwide to support the faecal immunochemical test (FIT) for haemoglobin (Hb). FIT is widely used as a screening test for colorectal cancer and increasingly in assessment of patients presenting with symptoms. EQA for FIT is provided in several matrices, each unique to the individual scheme. These include Hb suspended in a faecal-like matrix, lyophilised samples and liquid samples. The aim of this study was to evaluate commercially available EQAS and assess their suitability for use. Methods: Ten EQAS provided material for the study. EQA samples were analysed on four quantitative FIT systems. 15 faecal-like matrix samples were loaded per concentration per FIT system. Reconstituted lyophilised samples were examined five times on three separate occasions and liquid samples were examined 10 times per concentration per FIT system. The coefficient of variation (CV) was calculated per concentration of EQA for each FIT system. Results: Results from faecal-like matrix schemes had a higher median CV (12.4-19.0%) when compared to those from schemes providing liquid matrices (0.8-2.3%). The spread of CV values was also higher for results from faecal-like matrix schemes with an interquartile range (IQR) 4.4-24.0% vs. liquid IQR range of 0.3-2.5%. Conclusions: Hb results from faecal-like matrices, whilst more aligned to a patient or participant sample, are prone to pre-examination variation so do not assess the analytical accuracy of a FIT system. Liquid matrices are not prone to pre-examination variation and are better able to assess the accuracy of a FIT system.