Sensitivity and specificity of a new automated system for the detection of hepatitis B virus, hepatitis C virus, and human immunodeficiency virus nucleic acid in blood and plasma donations.

BACKGROUND: Use of nucleic acid testing (NAT) in donor infectious disease screening improves transfusion safety. Advances in NAT technology include improvements in assay sensitivity and system automation, and real-time viral target discrimination in multiplex assays. This article describes the sensitivity and specificity of cobas MPX, a multiplex assay for detection of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-1 Group M, HIV-2 and HIV-1 Group O RNA, HCV RNA, and HBV DNA, for use on the cobas 6800/8800 Systems. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: The specificity of cobas MPX was evaluated in samples from donors of blood and source plasma in the United States. Analytic sensitivity was determined with reference standards. Infectious window periods (WPs) before NAT detectability were calculated for current donor screening assays. RESULTS: The specificity of cobas MPX was 99.946% (99.883%-99.980%) in 11,203 blood donor samples tested individually (IDT), 100% (99.994%-100%) in 63,012 donor samples tested in pools of 6, and 99.994% (99.988%-99.998%) in 108,306 source plasma donations tested in pools of 96. Seven HCV NAT-yield donations and one seronegative occult HBV infection were detected. Ninety-five percent and 50% detection limits in plasma (IU/mL) were 25.7 and 3.8 for HIV-1M, 7.0 and 1.3 for HCV, and 1.4 and 0.3 for HBV. The HBV WP was 1 to 4 days shorter than other donor screening assays by IDT. CONCLUSION: cobas MPX demonstrated high specificity in blood and source plasma donations tested individually and in pools. High sensitivity, in particular for HBV, shortens the WP and may enhance detection of occult HBV.

Verification of Claimed Limit of Detection in Molecular Diagnostics.

BACKGROUND: Limit of detection (LOD) is an important performance characteristic of clinical laboratory tests. Verification, as recommended by the CLSI EP17-A2 guideline, is done by testing a sample with a claimed LOD concentration. Claimed LOD is verified if the 95% CI for the population proportion, calculated from observed proportion of positive results, contains the expected detection rate of 95% (CLSI EP17-A2; Clin Chem 2004;50:732-40). Claimed LOD, verification sample concentration, and observed rate of positive results are subjects to systematic and random errors that can cause false failure or false acceptance of the LOD verification. The aim of this study was to assess the probability to pass or fail verification of claimed LOD with various numbers of tests as function of the ratio of test sample concentration and actual LOD for PCR-based molecular diagnostics tests and provide recommendations for study design. METHODS: A method of calculating the probability of passing the claimed LOD verification following CLSI EP17-A2 guideline recommendations, based on the Poisson-binomial probability model, have been developed for PCR-based assays. RESULTS: Calculations and graphs have shown that the probability of passing LOD verification depends on the number of tests and has local minima and maxima between 0.975 and 0.995 for the number of tests from 20 to 1000 on samples having actual LOD concentration. The probability of detecting the difference between claimed LOD and actual LOD increases with the number of tests performed. Graphs and tables with examples are included. CONCLUSIONS: Method, tables, and graphs helping in planning LOD verification study in molecular diagnostics are provided along with the recommendations on what to do in case of failure to verify the LOD claim.

Comparison of molecular testing methods for the detection of EGFR mutations in formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue specimens of non-small cell lung cancer.

AIM: To conduct a methods correlation study of three different assays for the detection of mutations at EGFR gene in human formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tumour (FFPET) specimens of non-small cell lung carcinomas (NSCLC). METHODS: We conducted a 2-site method comparison study of two european conformity (CE) in vitro diagnostic (IVD)-marked assays, the cobas EGFR Mutation Test and the Therascreen EGFR29 Mutation Kit, and 2× bidirectional Sanger sequencing. We blind-tested 124 NSCLC FFPET specimens with all three methods; the cobas test was performed at both sites. Positive (PPA) and negative percent agreements (NPA) were determined for the cobas test versus each of the other two methods. Specimens yielding discordant test results between methods were further tested using quantitative massively parallel pyrosequencing (MPP). RESULTS: PPA between cobas and Sanger was 98.8%; NPA was 79.3%. Overall there were seven discordant results. MPP confirmed an exon 19 deletion in two cases and L858R mutation in four cases. PPA between cobas and Therascreen was 98.9% and NPA was 100%. There was one discordant result. Reproducibility of the cobas test between the two sites was 99.2%. CONCLUSIONS: The invalid rates for the cobas test and Therascreen were lower than Sanger sequencing. The cobas and Therascreen assays showed a high degree of concordance, and both were more sensitive for the detection of exon 19 deletion and L858R mutations than Sanger. The cobas test was highly reproducible between the two testing sites, used the least amount of DNA input and was the only test with automated results reporting.

Comparison of testing methods for the detection of BRAF V600E mutations in malignant melanoma: pre-approval validation study of the companion diagnostic test for vemurafenib.

BACKGROUND: The cobas 4800 BRAF V600 Mutation Test is a CE-marked and FDA-approved in vitro diagnostic assay used to select patients with metastatic melanoma for treatment with the selective BRAF inhibitor vemurafenib. We describe the pre-approval validation of this test in two external laboratories. METHODS: Melanoma specimens were tested for BRAF V600 mutations at two laboratories with the: cobas BRAF Mutation Test; ABI BRAF test; and bidirectional direct sequencing. Positive (PPA) and negative (NPA) percent agreements were determined between the cobas test and the other assays. Specimens with discordant results were tested with massively parallel pyrosequencing (454). DNA blends with 5% mutant alleles were tested to assess detection rates. RESULTS: Invalid results were observed in 8/116 specimens (6·9%) with Sanger, 10/116 (8·6%) with ABI BRAF, and 0/232 (0%) with the cobas BRAF test. PPA was 97·7% for V600E mutation for the cobas BRAF test and Sanger, and NPA was 95·3%. For the cobas BRAF test and ABI BRAF, PPA was 71·9% and NPA 83·7%. For 16 cobas BRAF test-negative/ABI BRAF-positive specimens, 454 sequencing detected no codon 600 mutations in 12 and variant codon 600 mutations in four. For eight cobas BRAF test-positive/ABI BRAF-negative specimens, four were V600E and four V600K by 454 sequencing. Detection rates for 5% mutation blends were 100% for the cobas BRAF test, 33% for Sanger, and 21% for the ABI BRAF. Reproducibility of the cobas BRAF test was 111/116 (96%) between the two sites. CONCLUSIONS: It is feasible to evaluate potential companion diagnostic tests in external laboratories simultaneously to the pivotal clinical trial validation. The health authority approved assay had substantially better performance characteristics than the two other methods. The overall success of the cobas BRAF test is a proof of concept for future biomarker development.

Evolution in the sensitivity of quantitative HIV-1 viral load tests.

Significant advancements in molecular diagnostics have been made since the inception and application of PCR-based technologies in clinical diagnostic laboratories and the management of HIV-1 infected patients. More recently, real-time PCR has improved the overall performance of assays used for detecting and quantifying HIV-1 RNA viral load in patients undergoing antiretroviral treatment. The effects of these changes and the interpretations of the HIV-1 viral load results are discussed in this review in the context of the different assays used, the viral dynamics of the HIV-1 virus, and the recent changes to HIV-1 treatment guidelines.

Evaluation of assigned-value uncertainty for complex calibrator value assignment processes: a prealbumin example.

BACKGROUND: Errors of calibrator-assigned values lead to errors in the testing of patient samples. The ability to estimate the uncertainties of calibrator-assigned values and other variables minimizes errors in testing processes. International Organization of Standardization guidelines provide simple equations for the estimation of calibrator uncertainty with simple value-assignment processes, but other methods are needed to estimate uncertainty in complex processes. METHODS: We estimated the assigned-value uncertainty with a Monte Carlo computer simulation of a complex value-assignment process, based on a formalized description of the process, with measurement parameters estimated experimentally. This method was applied to study uncertainty of a multilevel calibrator value assignment for a prealbumin immunoassay. RESULTS: The simulation results showed that the component of the uncertainty added by the process of value transfer from the reference material CRM470 to the calibrator is smaller than that of the reference material itself (<0.8% vs 3.7%). Varying the process parameters in the simulation model allowed for optimizing the process, while keeping the added uncertainty small. The patient result uncertainty caused by the calibrator uncertainty was also found to be small. CONCLUSIONS: This method of estimating uncertainty is a powerful tool that allows for estimation of calibrator uncertainty for optimization of various value assignment processes, with a reduced number of measurements and reagent costs, while satisfying the requirements to uncertainty. The new method expands and augments existing methods to allow estimation of uncertainty in complex processes.