APS calculator: a data-driven tool for setting outcome-based analytical performance specifications for measurement uncertainty using specific clinical requirements and population data.

OBJECTIVES: According to ISO 15189:2022, analytical performance specifications (APS) should relate to intended clinical use and impact on patient care. Therefore, we aimed to develop a web application for laboratory professionals to calculate APS based on a simulation of the impact of measurement uncertainty (MU) on the outcome using the chosen decision limits, agreement thresholds, and data of the population of interest. METHODS: We developed the "APS Calculator" allowing users to upload and select data of concern, specify decision limits and agreement thresholds, and conduct simulations to determine APS for MU. The simulation involved categorizing original measurand concentrations, generating measured (simulated) results by introducing different degrees of MU, and recategorizing measured concentrations based on clinical decision limits and acceptable clinical misclassification rates. The agreements between original and simulated result categories were assessed, and values that met or exceeded user-specified agreement thresholds that set goals for the between-category agreement were considered acceptable. The application generates contour plots of agreement rates and corresponding MU values. We tested the application using National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data, with decision limits from relevant guidelines. RESULTS: We determined APS for MU of six measurands (blood total hemoglobin, plasma fasting glucose, serum total and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, triglycerides, and total folate) to demonstrate the potential of the application to generate APS. CONCLUSIONS: The developed data-driven web application offers a flexible tool for laboratory professionals to calculate APS for MU using their chosen decision limits and agreement thresholds, and the data of the population of interest.

ISO 15189 is a sufficient instrument to guarantee high-quality manufacture of laboratory developed tests for in-house-use conform requirements of the European In-Vitro-Diagnostics Regulation.

The EU In-Vitro Diagnostic Device Regulation (IVDR) aims for transparent risk-and purpose-based validation of diagnostic devices, traceability of results to uniquely identified devices, and post-market surveillance. The IVDR regulates design, manufacture and putting into use of devices, but not medical services using these devices. In the absence of suitable commercial devices, the laboratory can resort to laboratory-developed tests (LDT) for in-house use. Documentary obligations (IVDR Art 5.5), the performance and safety specifications of ANNEX I, and development and manufacture under an ISO 15189-equivalent quality system apply. LDTs serve specific clinical needs, often for low volume niche applications, or correspond to the translational phase of new tests and treatments, often extremely relevant for patient care. As some commercial tests may disappear with the IVDR roll-out, many will require urgent LDT replacement. The workload will also depend on which modifications to commercial tests turns them into an LDT, and on how national legislators and competent authorities (CA) will handle new competences and responsibilities. We discuss appropriate interpretation of ISO 15189 to cover IVDR requirements. Selected cases illustrate LDT implementation covering medical needs with commensurate management of risk emanating from intended use and/or design of devices. Unintended collateral damage of the IVDR comprises loss of non-profitable niche applications, increases of costs and wasted resources, and migration of innovative research to more cost-efficient environments. Taking into account local specifics, the legislative framework should reduce the burden on and associated opportunity costs for the health care system, by making diligent use of existing frameworks.

An approach for determining allowable between reagent lot variation.

Clinicians trust medical laboratories to provide reliable results on which they rely for clinical decisions. Laboratories fulfil their responsibility for accurate and consistent results by utilizing an arsenal of approaches, ranging from validation and verification experiments to daily quality control procedures. All these procedures verify, on different moments, that the results of a certain examination procedure have analytical performance characteristics (APC) that meet analytical performance specifications (APS) set for a particular intended use. The APC can in part be determined by estimating the measurement uncertainty component under conditions of within-laboratory precision (uRw), which comprises all components influencing the measurement uncertainty of random sources. To maintain the adequacy of their measurement procedures, laboratories need to distinguish aspects that are manageable vs. those that are not. One of the aspects that may influence uRw is the momentary significant bias caused by shifts in reagent and/or calibrator lots, which, when accepted or unnoticed, become a factor of the APC. In this paper, we postulate a model for allocating a part of allowable uRw to between-reagent lot variation, based on the need for long-term consistency of the measurement variability for that specific measurand. The allocation manages the ratio between short-term and long-term variation and indicates laboratories when to reject or correct certain variations due to reagent lots.

Improving the laboratory result release process in the light of ISO 15189:2012 standard.

The ISO 15189:2012 standard section 5.9.1 requires laboratories to review results before release, considering quality control, previous results, and clinical information, if any, and to issue documented procedures about it. While laboratory result reporting is generally regarded as part of the post-analytical phase, the result release process requires a general view of the total examination process. Reviewing test results may follow with troubleshooting and test repetition, including reanalyzing an individual sample or resampling. A systematic understanding of the result release may help laboratory professionals carry out appropriate test repetition and ensure the plausibility of laboratory results. In this paper, we addressed the crucial steps in the result release process, including evaluation of sample quality, critical result notification, result reporting, and recommendations for the management of the result release, considering quality control alerts, instrument flags, warning messages, and interference indexes. Error detection tools and plausibility checks mentioned in the present paper can support the daily practice of results release.

Validation and verification of examination procedures in medical laboratories: opinion of the EFLM Working Group Accreditation and ISO/CEN standards (WG-A/ISO) on dealing with ISO 15189:2012 demands for method verification and validation.

This paper reflects the opinion of the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) Working Group Accreditation and ISO/CEN standards (WG-A/ISO). It aims to provide guidance for drawing up local/national documents about validation and verification of laboratory methods. We demonstrate how risk evaluation can be used to optimize laboratory policies to meet intended use requirements as well as requirements of standards. This is translated in a number of recommendations on how to introduce risk evaluation in various stages of the implementation of new methods ultimately covering the whole process cycle.

Recommendation for the review of biological reference intervals in medical laboratories.

This document is based on the original recommendation of the Expert Panel on the Theory of Reference Values of the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (IFCC), updated guidelines were recently published under the auspices of the IFCC and the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI). This document summarizes proposals for recommendations on: (i) The terminology, which is often confusing, noticeably concerning the terms of reference limits and decision limits. (ii) The method for the determination of reference limits according to the original procedure and the conditions, which should be used. (iii) A simple procedure allowing the medical laboratories to fulfill the requirements of the regulation and standards. The updated document proposes to verify that published reference limits are applicable to the laboratory involved. Finally, the strengths and limits of the revised recommendations (especially the selection of the reference population, the maintenance of the analytical quality, the choice of the statistical method used…) will be briefly discussed.

Estimation of renal function in lung cancer patients.

INTRODUCTION: In lung cancer patients treated with chemotherapy, renal function is an important parameter to be monitored. Since measurement of renal function with either isotope or creatinine clearance is time consuming and expensive, we evaluated which of the following equations: Cockcroft-Gault (CG), Wright, modification of diet in renal disease equation (MDRD), MDRD adjusted for body surface area (BSA) and chronic kidney disease epidemiology collaboration (CKD-EPI) best resembles endogenous creatinine clearance (ECC) and could therefore replace its measurement in clinical practice. METHODS: 218 lung cancer patients, who had their 24-h creatinine secretion in urine measured prior to the start of any chemotherapy, were included. Estimation of renal function was calculated and compared to ECC. RESULTS: There were no major differences in the performance of the tested equations. Mean percentage error of more than 20% and general underestimation was common to all equations. Wright equation performed best although it describes only 43% of ECC variability. Mean measured ECC was 94 mL/min (95% confidence interval [CI]: 90-98 mL/min) and 90 mL/min for Wright equation (95% CI: 87-93 mL/min) (Supp. Fig. 3). MDRD and CKD-EPI equation performed poorest since they do not include any body size descriptor. Large deviations of differences were observed, with a median standard deviation of more than 20% and deviations from ECC exceeding 100%. Wright equation performed best, whereas, despite their leading role in the detection of renal diseases, the MDRD and CKD-EPI equation performed poorest since they do not include any body size descriptor. In the range of ECC<50 mL/(min×1.73 m(2)), the CG equation most often detected a contraindication for cisplatin use. Differences between ECC and calculated values correlated with patients' weight, BSA and body mass index when these were not included in the equation itself. CONCLUSIONS: In evaluating the renal function of lung cancer patients, equations adjusted for body size descriptors should be preferred. Estimated renal function should be interpreted against the characteristics of patient's body size and special attention is needed when these are reaching the extremes.