Turner, Lindsey E.

Abstract Clinical flow cytometry laboratories are facing rising test volumes, greater assay complexity, and increasing requirements for quality control and assay validation. In response, the International Clinical Cytometry Society (ICCS) conducted a workload survey in early 2023 to gather updated information on assay volumes, complexity, staffing, and technology. Data analysis focused on identifying correlations between length of time to introduce new assays and other factors as a means to gain insight about laboratories that seem to be either adapting or struggling. Flow cytometry assays were categorized into 3 levels of technical/interpretative complexity: high (e.g., measurable/minimal residual disease (MRD assays)), moderate (e.g., leukemia/lymphoma assays (Assays L&L ), excluding MRD assays), and low (e.g., CD4 count). Annual assays per staff member were calculated according to staff involved in case sign‐out (Staff Signout ) or other laboratory operations (Staff LabOps ). Respondents were from 101 laboratories in the United States (69.3%), Canada (4.0%), and other countries (26.7%). Low, moderate, and high technical/interpretative complexity assays were performed in 85.1%, 97.0%, and 47.5% of all laboratories, respectively. Median annual total assays (Assays Total ) per laboratory were 3515 and, based on complexity, were 1518.5 (low), 1808.8 (moderate), and 350 (high). Among all laboratories, the median time (interquartile range) to introduce new Assays L&L was 6 mos. (4–12 mos.), to introduce MRD assays was 11 mos. (5–12 mos.), and to validate/go‐live with new cytometers was 8 mos. (4–12 mos.); these times positively correlated with each other. This study confirmed significantly increased workload since the prior ICCS 2013 workload survey with a concurrent decrease in Staff LabOps . Faster introduction of new assays correlated with other successes, including quicker validation of and going live with new cytometers. Among all laboratories, those that performed myeloid MRD assays versus those that did not were also found to be faster to introduce new assays. The need for sufficient staffing has been emphasized because laboratories with both higher annual volumes of myeloma MRD assays and higher ratios of Assays Total per Staff LabOps were slower to introduce new assays. “Lack of staff and/or time dedicated or protected for assay development” and, more generally, “staff number” were the most commonly identified major barriers for new assay development, with the former specifically linked to slower introduction of new assays among all laboratories.

ImportanceAutoimmune encephalitis misdiagnosis can lead to harm.ObjectiveTo determine the diseases misdiagnosed as autoimmune encephalitis and potential reasons for misdiagnosis.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis retrospective multicenter study took place from January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2020, at autoimmune encephalitis subspecialty outpatient clinics including Mayo Clinic (n = 44), University of Oxford (n = 18), University of Texas Southwestern (n = 18), University of California, San Francisco (n = 17), Washington University in St Louis (n = 6), and University of Utah (n = 4). Inclusion criteria were adults (age ≥18 years) with a prior autoimmune encephalitis diagnosis at a participating center or other medical facility and a subsequent alternative diagnosis at a participating center. A total of 393 patients were referred with an autoimmune encephalitis diagnosis, and of those, 286 patients with true autoimmune encephalitis were excluded.Main Outcomes and MeasuresData were collected on clinical features, investigations, fulfillment of autoimmune encephalitis criteria, alternative diagnoses, potential contributors to misdiagnosis, and immunotherapy adverse reactions.ResultsA total of 107 patients were misdiagnosed with autoimmune encephalitis, and 77 (72%) did not fulfill diagnostic criteria for autoimmune encephalitis. The median (IQR) age was 48 (35.5-60.5) years and 65 (61%) were female. Correct diagnoses included functional neurologic disorder (27 [25%]), neurodegenerative disease (22 [20.5%]), primary psychiatric disease (19 [18%]), cognitive deficits from comorbidities (11 [10%]), cerebral neoplasm (10 [9.5%]), and other (18 [17%]). Onset was acute/subacute in 56 (52%) or insidious (>3 months) in 51 (48%). Magnetic resonance imaging of the brain was suggestive of encephalitis in 19 of 104 patients (18%) and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) pleocytosis occurred in 16 of 84 patients (19%). Thyroid peroxidase antibodies were elevated in 24 of 62 patients (39%). Positive neural autoantibodies were more frequent in serum than CSF (48 of 105 [46%] vs 7 of 91 [8%]) and included 1 or more of GAD65 (n = 14), voltage-gated potassium channel complex (LGI1 and CASPR2 negative) (n = 10), N-methyl-d-aspartate receptor by cell-based assay only (n = 10; 6 negative in CSF), and other (n = 18). Adverse reactions from immunotherapies occurred in 17 of 84 patients (20%). Potential contributors to misdiagnosis included overinterpretation of positive serum antibodies (53 [50%]), misinterpretation of functional/psychiatric, or nonspecific cognitive dysfunction as encephalopathy (41 [38%]).Conclusions and RelevanceWhen evaluating for autoimmune encephalitis, a broad differential diagnosis should be considered and misdiagnosis occurs in many settings including at specialized centers. In this study, red flags suggesting alternative diagnoses included an insidious onset, positive nonspecific serum antibody, and failure to fulfill autoimmune encephalitis diagnostic criteria. Autoimmune encephalitis misdiagnosis leads to morbidity from unnecessary immunotherapies and delayed treatment of the correct diagnosis.