Progress report of an external quality assessment scheme for cyclosporine assay.

Beginning in 1987, an external quality assessment (EQA) scheme for cyclosporine (CsA) assay was organized by our Institute and supported by National Research Council (CNR); in 1991, the CNR EQA joined the French CsA interlaboratory program organized by Service de Radiopharmacie et Radioanalyse, University of Lyon. During the last 2 years (1993 and 1994 cycles), > 170 laboratories (from seven European countries) participated in this survey, assaying 44 control samples prepared from pooled blood of heart- and renal-transplant patients; normal pools added with known amounts of CsA were also distributed. During the whole EQA period, a trend toward the use of specific and nonisotopic techniques has been observed. In 1994, 91% of the collected results have been produced by specific methods [high-pressure liquid chromatography (HPLC) or specific immunoassays developed to assay the native molecule of CsA without its metabolites];in the same cycle, the fully automated techniques [TDx, fluorescence polarization immunoassay (FPIA), and enzyme-multiplied immunoassay (EMIT)] accounted for 73% of total results. CsA concentration measured by monoclonal specific immunoassays [(TDx FPIA, radioimmunoassay (RIA) Cyclo-Trac, and EMIT] was well correlated with those from HPLC (r = 0.99-1.00); results from EMIT were very close to those from HPLC, whereas results from RIA Cyclo-Trac and TDx were slightly overestimated (10-20%). Nonspecific methods (TDx polyclonal and nonspecific RIA Cyclo-Trac) measured CsA concentrations 3-4 times higher than those found by HPLC. The cross-reactivity of CsA metabolites in specific immunoassays was estimated from data of patients' samples and spiked samples; an interference of 6% in RIA Cyclo-Trac, 7% in EMIT, and 26% in TDx FPIA was found. The precision coefficient of variation (CV% between laboratory and between assay) of the methods observed in the 1994 EQA cycle was 9.5 for TDx polyclonal FPIA, 10.4 for TDx monoclonal FPIA, 10.5 for EMIT, 10.6 for RIA specific Cyclo-Trac, 14.2 for RIA nonspecific Cyclo-Trac, and 15.2 for HPLC.

Performance of immunoassays for ca 19-9, ca 15-3 and ca 125 tumour markers evaluated from an international quality assessment survey.

Data collected in the 1993 and 1994 cycles of an international External Quality Assessment (EQA) programme were cumulatively analysed to evaluate the analytical performance of the methods currently in use for routine assay of mucinous tumour markers CA 19-9, CA 15-3 and CA 125. On average the between-laboratory variability was 14.7 and 15.8 CV% for CA 15-3 and CA 125 respectively. For CA 19-9, a markedly worse between-laboratory variability (on average 27.2 CV%) was found; the agreement of CA 19-9 results worsened in the last few years when new isotopic techniques became available. The variability component attributable to systematic differences between methods/kits was relatively small for CA 15-3 and CA 125 (17% and 21% of the total variability), while it was markedly larger for CA 19-9 (45% of the total variability). The precision of the methods/kits most often used in the survey ranged from 9.6 to 13.9 CV% for CA 125 and from 10.8 to 14.1 CV% for CA 15-3. For these two tumour markers the precision of the traditional IRMAs does not appear to be different from that of the new fully automated non-isotopic techniques. The precision of CA 19-9 methods was on average worse from (11.9 to 19.2 CV%), even though the precision of the two automated systems was better than that of IRMAs. In conclusion, the results of this study indicate that the between-laboratory agreement for CA 15-3 and CA 125 assays appears satisfactory while the CA 19-9 assay shows larger differences between methods and is affected by poorer precision of kits.

Systematic differences between commercial immunoassays for free thyroxine and free triiodothyronine in an external quality assessment program.

Data collected in a national external quality assessment program for free thyroxine (fT4) and free triiodothyronine (fT3) were analyzed to evaluate the performance of 10 method/kits with 26 control samples distributed to approximately 170 laboratories. The control materials were normal serum pools, pooled sera supplemented with thyroid hormones, a pregnancy serum pool, serum pooled from patients with familial dysalbuminemic hyperthyroxinemia (FDH), and a normal serum pool progressively diluted. The between-laboratory variability (CV) was approximately constant in normal and supplemented pools for fT4 (15.3%) and fT3 (24.0%) but markedly increased in diluted, pregnancy, and FDH pools (21.9-35.2% for fT4 and 28.6-66.5% for fT3) because of increases in systematic between-kit differences in control samples with altered binding-protein capacity. Moreover, free hormone concentrations measured in progressively diluted sera averaged lower than in undiluted samples. This decrease of concentration was less for back-titration or labeled-antibody techniques and greater for labeled-analog methods; only the method involving adsorption to cross-linked dextran (Sephadex) was unaffected by dilution. Evaluation of the reproducibility of the method/kits showed between-assay, between-laboratory precision ranging from 7.8% to 17.0% for fT4 and from 9.8% to 20.3% for fT3.

Analytical performance of CA 19.9, CA 125 and CA 15.3 assays as observed through an external quality assessment program.

Immunoassays of the tumor markers CA 19.9, CA125 and CA 15.3 are generally acknowledged to be a useful tool in the management of cancer patients. As a consequence, many methods developed by different companies are now commercially available. However, discrepancies have been described in the results of marker determinations even when the same monoclonal antibody was used. An external quality assessment (EQA) was carried out; starting from 1989 about 110 laboratories participated; since December 1991 the program was linked with the interlaboratory program Oncocheck organized by the Service de Radiopharmacie et Radioanalyse, University of Lyon. At present more than 200 laboratories of many European countries are involved: cumulatively 47 quality control samples have been prepared and sent to the participants. This manuscript is a report on data collected for CA 19.9, CA 125, and CA 15.3.

Immunoassay of CEA, CA 19-9, CA 125, and CA 15-3 on the automated systems ES 300 and ES 600: methodological evaluation from a multicentre collaborative study.

The analytical performance of the automated Enzymun Test System ES 300 and ES 600 (developed by Boehringer Mannheim) for the assay of the tumour markers CEA, CA 19-9, CA 125, and CA 15-3, was assessed from data collected in a multicentre collaborative study in which eleven laboratories were involved. Results of the 1990 cycle of the external quality assessment (EQA) scheme for tumour markers, supported by the Italian National Research Council (CNR), were also used in this evaluation. The within-assay and between-assay precision was found to be 2.0 and 4.3 CV% for CEA, 2.9 and 6.8 CV% for CA 19-9, 3.6 and 9.4 CV% for CA 125, 2.9 and 6.0 CV% for CA 15-3. The between-lab variability of the four tumour markers on ES 300 and ES 600 systems was 9.4, 10.6, 11.9, 9.2 CV% for CEA, CA 19-9, CA 125 and CA 15-3 respectively. These values were comparable to or better than those obtained with the most precise manual kits used by laboratories participating in the 1990 EQA cycle. The agreement between the results from the Enzymun Test and those obtained using other method/kits was evaluated by assaying control samples previously circulated either in the CNR EQA or in the German EQA. The regression analysis indicates that for CEA, CA 125 and CA 15-3 assays the results produced by ES 300 and ES 600 are in good agreement with the consensus means of the EQAs; CA 19-9 results exhibit a worse correlation and are generally lower than the consensus mean. The linearity of the assays for the four tumour markers was checked by dilution tests performed by participants in the collaborative study; in all cases the dilution of the sample did not affect the values obtained.

The CNR external quality assessment program for immunoassays: statistical analysis and reports for participants.

The results collected in the CNR/Tecno-standard external quality assessment (EQA) program for immunoassays of hormones and tumor markers are computer-processed to prepare a "periodic" report and an "end-of-period" report to be sent back to the participants in the survey. The aim of the periodic report is to allow comparison between the result obtained by a laboratory on a single EQA sample with those of all the other laboratories and with the users of the same method/kit; the report contains a histogram of all results and the mean, SD, CV, median and range (computed after trimming of outliers). The same statistics are also reported for data grouped according to the method/kit used. The end of period report provide the participant with a scored estimate of individual analytical performance (average bias and average imprecision) achieved assaying all the EQA samples dispatched in the control cycle (usually a six-month period during which 12-18 samples have been assayed); this cumulative report contains estimates of the performance of those kits more widely used in the survey. Beside helping laboratories to monitor their performance against an external reference, the EQA allows the collection of a large amount of data from which the state of the art and trends in the quality of immunoassays can be soundly evaluated and documented. To achieve this aim, the average total variability is computed from all data collected in the EQA cycle; this index is used for comparing the between-laboratory agreement of different immunoassays and for demonstrating trends of the quality over time.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

A new chemiluminescence immunoassay for triiodothyronine and thyroxine: evaluation using quality control sera assayed in an interlaboratory survey.

A recently developed chemiluminescence immunoassay system (LIA-mat) for triiodothyronine and thyroxine, set up by Byk-Sangtec Diagnostica (Dietzenbach, Germany), has been evaluated and compared with radioimmunoassays and with a chemiluminescence enhanced enzyme immunoassay (Amerlite), using control materials circulated in a national interlaboratory quality control, as well as patient sera. The LIA-mat assays are competitive methods which use coated monoclonal antibodies and triiodothyronine- or thyroxine-ABEI (aminobutylethylisoluminol) conjugate as tracers. The working range of LIA-mat T3 (computed from the within-assay precision profile) extended from 1.4 to 12.3 nmol/l; the between-assay precision was 8.1 - 19.3 CV%. Regression analysis of the LIA-mat T3 results (y) against the consensus means (x) of the participants in the national interlaboratory survey yielded: y = -0.14 + 1.05 x, r = 0.95. The working range of LIA-mat T4 extended from 33 to 515 nmol/l; the between-assay precision was 5.4 - 9.2 CV%. An excellent agreement was found between LIA-mat T4 results (y) and the consensus means (x) of the laboratories participating in the national interlaboratory survey (y = 3.79 + 1.02 x, r = 0.98).

External quality control survey for alpha-fetoprotein assay.

Starting from 1984 we organized an interlaboratory quality control (QC) survey for the tumor marker AFP in which 100-150 laboratories have been involved. Seven consecutive QC cycles have been carried out during the period 1984-1988; 15-20 samples have been prepared and sent in each cycle. The 11 kits more used in the survey, which use three different immunological methods (3 kits EIA, 3 kits RIA, and 5 kits IRMA) were evaluated. Since the results of AFP assays were expressed as ng/ml of different local standards of the various kits, the participants were asked to convert their results in UI/ml of the 1st IRP 72/225 distributed by WHO. The total variability of AFP assay resulted approximately constant (19.9-24.7 CV%) during the all QC period. The validity of the consensus mean of AFP determinations obtained in the survey and assumed as reference value has been checked by recovery experiments. Regression analysis indicates that the consensus means found in these samples are in very good agreement with the added AFP. The analytical performance achieved by the most popular methods/kits, observed in the last period, are also reported.

Methodological evaluation of a new chemiluminescence immunoassay for thyrotropin using acridinium ester-labelled antibody.

A recently available immunochemiluminometric assay (ICMA) for TSH developed by Ciba Corning Corp. has been evaluated. This system (Magic Lite) uses an acridinium-ester-labelled antibody and magnetizable particle for bound-free separation. In each assay only two calibrators are carried out and used to re-scale a manufacturer-generated curve stored in the memory of the luminometer. The precision of the response (RLU) estimated by all duplicates of 14 runs was about 4% for responses greater than 12,000 RLU (corresponding to a concentration interval 0.7-113 microIU/ml) and worsened in the lower range (up to 10% CV); the sensitivity, computed from the mean within-assay precision profile, was 0.028 microIU/ml; the between-assay precision ranged from 4.6 to 13.1 CV%. Regression analysis of ICMA results (y) against consensus values of Behring IRMA (x) on 15 QC sera assayed in an inter-laboratory survey (concentration range 1-30 microIU/ml) gave y = -0.003 + 0.98x indicating a good agreement of the two techniques. Similar conclusions have been derived from the comparison of the ICMA results (y) in the low TSH concentration range (less than 1 microIU/ml) against the IRMA Boots Celltech (x) on 80 patient samples (y = 0.04 + 1.04x).

Minimizing between-kit variability in immunoassay for carcinoembryonic antigen by use of a common standard.

Between-laboratory agreement of CEA determinations collected in a multicenter study has been substantially improved (CV decreased from 60.4 to 21.6%) by converting the results from mass concentration units (ng/mL) of local kit standards to int. units/L of the international standard first IRP 73/601. Conversion factors for the kits most used were computed, during the same survey, from results of two analytical-recovery experiments in which control samples, supplemented with the international standard, were analyzed by participating laboratories (n = 96).

Components of variance analysis of data produced in a national quality-control survey of radioimmunoassays of thyroxin, triiodothyronine, thyrotropin, prolactin, and progesterone.

Data collected in a collaborative survey for radioimmunoassays have been studied by using analysis of variance to estimate the within-kit (CVw.kit) and the between-kit (CVb.kit) components of the total variability (CVT). This analysis has been applied to the results for triiodothyronine, thyroxin, thyrotropin, prolactin, and progesterone produced by 80-150 laboratories that assayed blind, replicate samples. Total variability was lowest in the thyroxin assay (CVT = 10.9%), associated with a very close between-kit agreement (CVb.kit = 4.0%); in the triiodothyronine assay, on the other hand, the large between-kit component (CVb.kit = 10.1%) increased the total variability to 16.1%. In the prolactin assay the CVT of 19.3% included 17.5% CVw.kit and 8.1% CVb.kit. Assays for thyrotropin and progesterone involve analyses of two pools at different hormone concentrations. The CVb.kit component was very high in the low-concentration pool, both for thyrotropin (25.1%) and progesterone (45.2%); in the higher-concentration pool it decreased to 8.3% for thyrotropin but remained high (21.6%) for progesterone. Applying analysis of variance to the triiodothyronine and thyroxin data obtained by different laboratories using the same kit showed that most kits yielded significantly different measurements when used in different laboratories.

Progress report on a national quality-control survey of triiodothyronine and thyroxin assay.

In January 1980, a national external quality-control survey was organized to evaluate assays for triiodothyronine (T3) and thyroxin (T4). Currently, about 150 laboratories are involved. Each participant has received and assayed 100 quality-control samples during four periods of about six months each. The average analytical performance achieved by the participants in each six-month period was estimated by computing the average between-laboratory agreement (CVT), the overall average bias, and the average laboratory imprecision. During the 2.5 years of the survey, analytical performance has improved for both assays (CVT decreased from 17.0 to 15.7% for T3 and from 13.1 to 12.7% for T4). Analysis of survey results according to the method/kit used (mean kit bias and kit imprecision for the nine kits most used by participants) showed that the analytical reliability of the T4 assay is generally better than that observed for T3, mainly because of the larger systematic differences among T3 kits.