BACKGROUND: Circulating tumor cells (CTCs) are cells that have detached from solid tumors and entered the blood. CTCs can be detected, among others, by semi-automated immunomagnetic enrichment and image cytometry using CellSearch® (Veridex, Raritan, NJ). We studied the feasibility of external quality assurance (EQA) of the entire CellSearch procedure from blood draw to interpretation of results in multiple laboratories. METHODS: Blood samples from six cancer patients and controls were distributed to 14 independent laboratories to test between-laboratory, between-assay, and between-instrument variation. Additionally, between-operator variability was assessed through the interpretation of blinded images of all blood samples on a website. RESULTS: Shipment and storage of samples had no influence on CTC values. Between-instrument (coefficient of variation (CV) < 12%) and between-assay variation was low (CV ≤ 20%), indicating high reproducibility. However, between-laboratory CV ranged from 45 to 64%. Although inter-operator agreement on image interpretation (Fleiss' κ statistics) ranged from "substantial" to "almost perfect," image interpretation, particularly of samples containing high numbers of apoptotic cells, was the main contributor to between-laboratory variation. CONCLUSIONS: This multicenter study shows the feasibility of an EQA program for CTC detection in patient samples, and the importance of continuation of such a program for the harmonization of CTC enumeration.
BACKGROUND: Circulating tumor cells (CTCs) are cells that have detached from solid tumors and entered the blood. CTCs can be detected, among others, by semi-automated immunomagnetic enrichment and image cytometry using CellSearch® (Veridex, Raritan, NJ). We studied the feasibility of external quality assurance (EQA) of the entire CellSearch procedure from blood draw to interpretation of results in multiple laboratories. METHODS: Blood samples from six cancerpatients and controls were distributed to 14 independent laboratories to test between-laboratory, between-assay, and between-instrument variation. Additionally, between-operator variability was assessed through the interpretation of blinded images of all blood samples on a website. RESULTS: Shipment and storage of samples had no influence on CTC values. Between-instrument (coefficient of variation (CV) < 12%) and between-assay variation was low (CV ≤ 20%), indicating high reproducibility. However, between-laboratory CV ranged from 45 to 64%. Although inter-operator agreement on image interpretation (Fleiss' κ statistics) ranged from "substantial" to "almost perfect," image interpretation, particularly of samples containing high numbers of apoptotic cells, was the main contributor to between-laboratory variation. CONCLUSIONS: This multicenter study shows the feasibility of an EQA program for CTC detection in patient samples, and the importance of continuation of such a program for the harmonization of CTC enumeration.
Authors: Matthew G Krebs; Robert L Metcalf; Louise Carter; Ged Brady; Fiona H Blackhall; Caroline Dive Journal: Nat Rev Clin Oncol Date: 2014-01-21 Impact factor: 66.675
Authors: Jeffrey B Smerage; G Thomas Budd; Gerald V Doyle; Marty Brown; Costanza Paoletti; Maria Muniz; M Craig Miller; Madeline I Repollet; David A Chianese; Mark C Connelly; Leon W W M Terstappen; Daniel F Hayes Journal: Mol Oncol Date: 2013-03-14 Impact factor: 6.603
Authors: Mark T J van Bussel; Dick Pluim; Mijke Bol; Jos H Beijnen; Jan H M Schellens; Dieta Brandsma Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2017-11-30 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Victoria Foy; Colin R Lindsay; Alexandra Carmel; Fabiola Fernandez-Gutierrez; Matthew G Krebs; Lynsey Priest; Mathew Carter; Harry J M Groen; T Jeroen N Hiltermann; Antonella de Luca; Francoise Farace; Benjamin Besse; Leon Terstappen; Elisabetta Rossi; Alessandro Morabito; Francesco Perrone; Andrew Renehan; Corinne Faivre-Finn; Nicola Normanno; Caroline Dive; Fiona Blackhall; Stefan Michiels Journal: Transl Lung Cancer Res Date: 2021-04