Literature DB >> 29595317

Quantitative Assessment of Immunohistochemistry Laboratory Performance by Measuring Analytic Response Curves and Limits of Detection.

Seshi R Sompuram, Kodela Vani, Anika K Schaedle, Anuradha Balasubramanian, Steven A Bogen1.   

Abstract

CONTEXT: - Numerous studies highlight interlaboratory performance variability in diagnostic immunohistochemistry (IHC) testing. Despite substantial improvements over the years, the inability to quantitatively and objectively assess immunostain sensitivity complicates interlaboratory standardization.
OBJECTIVE: - To quantitatively and objectively assess the sensitivity of the immunohistochemical stains for human epidermal growth factor receptor type 2 (HER2), estrogen receptor (ER), and progesterone receptor (PR) across IHC laboratories in a proficiency testing format. We measure sensitivity with parameters that are new to the field of diagnostic IHC: analytic response curves and limits of detection.
DESIGN: - Thirty-nine diagnostic IHC laboratories stained a set of 3 slides, one each for HER2, ER, and PR. Each slide incorporated a positive tissue section and IHControls at 5 different concentrations. The IHControls comprise cell-sized clear microbeads coated with defined concentrations of analyte (HER2, ER, and/or PR). The laboratories identified the limits of detection and then mailed the slides for quantitative assessment.
RESULTS: - Each commercial immunostain demonstrated a characteristic analytic response curve, reflecting strong reproducibility among IHC laboratories using the same automation and reagents prepared per current Good Manufacturing Practices. However, when comparing different commercial vendors (using different reagents), the data reveal up to 100-fold differences in analytic sensitivity. For proficiency testing purposes, quantitative assessment using analytic response curves was superior to subjective interpretation of limits of detection.
CONCLUSIONS: - Assessment of IHC laboratory performance by quantitative measurement of analytic response curves is a powerful, objective tool for identifying outlier IHC laboratories. It uniquely evaluates immunostain performance across a range of defined analyte concentrations.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29595317     DOI: 10.5858/arpa.2017-0330-OA

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Pathol Lab Med        ISSN: 0003-9985            Impact factor:   5.534


  7 in total

1.  A Root Cause Analysis Into the High Error Rate in Clinical Immunohistochemistry.

Authors:  Steven A Bogen
Journal:  Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol       Date:  2019-02-22

2.  Synthetic Antigen Gels as Practical Controls for Standardized and Quantitative Immunohistochemistry.

Authors:  Kathy J Hötzel; Charles A Havnar; Hai V Ngu; Sandra Rost; Scot D Liu; Linda K Rangell; Franklin V Peale
Journal:  J Histochem Cytochem       Date:  2019-03-18       Impact factor: 2.479

Review 3.  Fit-for-Purpose Immunohistochemical Biomarkers.

Authors:  Emina Emilia Torlakovic
Journal:  Endocr Pathol       Date:  2018-06       Impact factor: 3.943

4.  Development and Validation of Measurement Traceability for In Situ Immunoassays.

Authors:  Emina E Torlakovic; Seshi R Sompuram; Kodela Vani; Lili Wang; Anika K Schaedle; Paul C DeRose; Steven A Bogen
Journal:  Clin Chem       Date:  2021-04-29       Impact factor: 8.327

5.  Digital Image Analysis and Quantitative Bead Standards in Root Cause Analysis of Immunohistochemical Staining Variability: A Real-world Example.

Authors:  Rebecca Rojansky; Seshi R Sompuram; Ellen Gomulia; Yasodha Natkunam; Megan L Troxell; Sebastian Fernandez-Pol
Journal:  Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol       Date:  2022-07-13

6.  Probing metabolic alterations in breast cancer in response to molecular inhibitors with Raman spectroscopy and validated with mass spectrometry.

Authors:  Xiaona Wen; Yu-Chuan Ou; Galina Bogatcheva; Giju Thomas; Anita Mahadevan-Jansen; Bhuminder Singh; Eugene C Lin; Rizia Bardhan
Journal:  Chem Sci       Date:  2020-08-20       Impact factor: 9.969

7.  Quantitative comparison of PD-L1 IHC assays against NIST standard reference material 1934.

Authors:  Seshi R Sompuram; Emina E Torlakovic; Nils A 't Hart; Kodela Vani; Steven A Bogen
Journal:  Mod Pathol       Date:  2021-08-13       Impact factor: 7.842

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.