Analytical performance validation of a coronary heart disease risk assessment multi-analyte proteomic test.

BACKGROUND: Coronary heart disease (CHD) remains prevalent despite efforts to improve CHD risk assessment. The authors developed a multi-analyte immunoassay-based CHD risk assessment (CHDRA) algorithm, clinically validated in a multicenter study, to improve CHDRA in intermediate risk individuals. OBJECTIVE: Clinical laboratory validation of the CHDRA biomarker assays' analytical performance. METHODS: Multiplexed immunoassay panels developed for the seven CHDRA assays were evaluated with donor sera in a clinical laboratory. Specificity, sensitivity, interfering substances and reproducibility of the CHDRA assays, along with the effects of pre-analytical specimen processing, were evaluated. RESULTS: Analytical measurements of the CHDRA panel proteins (CTACK, Eotaxin, Fas Ligand, HGF, IL-16, MCP-3 and sFas) exhibited acceptable accuracy (80 - 120%), cross-reactivity (< 1%), interference (< 30% at high concentrations of bilirubin, lipids, hemoglobin and HAMA), sensitivity and reproducibility (< 20% CV across multiple runs, operators and instruments). Recoveries from donor sera subjected to typical clinical laboratory pre-analytical conditions were within 80 - 120%. The pre-analytical variables did not substantively impact the CHDRA scores. CONCLUSIONS: The CHDRA panel analytical validation in a clinical laboratory meets or exceeds the specifications established during the clinical utility studies. Risk score reproducibility across multiple test scenarios suggests the assays are not susceptible to clinical laboratory pre-analytical and analytical variation.

An immunohistochemical and fluorescence in situ hybridization-based comparison between the Oracle HER2 Bond Immunohistochemical System, Dako HercepTest, and Vysis PathVysion HER2 FISH using both commercially validated and modified ASCO/CAP and United Kingdom HER2 IHC scoring guidelines.

Immunohistochemistry (IHC) is used as the frontline assay to determine HER2 status in invasive breast cancer patients. The aim of the study was to compare the performance of the Leica Oracle HER2 Bond IHC System (Oracle) with the current most readily accepted Dako HercepTest (HercepTest), using both commercially validated and modified ASCO/CAP and UK HER2 IHC scoring guidelines. A total of 445 breast cancer samples from 3 international clinical HER2 referral centers were stained with the 2 test systems and scored in a blinded fashion by experienced pathologists. The overall agreement between the 2 tests in a 3×3 (negative, equivocal and positive) analysis shows a concordance of 86.7% and 86.3%, respectively when analyzed using commercially validated and modified ASCO/CAP and UK HER2 IHC scoring guidelines. There is a good concordance between the Oracle and the HercepTest. The advantages of a complete fully automated test such as the Oracle include standardization of key analytical factors and improved turn around time. The implementation of the modified ASCO/CAP and UK HER2 IHC scoring guidelines has minimal effect on either assay interpretation, showing that Oracle can be used as a methodology for accurately determining HER2 IHC status in formalin fixed, paraffin-embedded breast cancer tissue.