Wallace, Paul K

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.

AbstractThe Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) H62—Validation of Assays Performed by Flow Cytometry guideline, released in 2021, provides recommendations for platform workflow and quality system essentials, instrument setup and standardization, assay development and optimization and fit‐for‐purpose analytical method validation. In addition, CLSI H62 includes some recommendations for the validation strategies after a validated flow cytometric method has been modified. This manuscript builds on those recommendations and discusses the impact of different types of assay modifications on assay performance. Recommendations regarding which validation parameters to evaluate depending on the type of modification are provided. The impact of assay modification on the assay's intended use is discussed. When recommending minor deviations from the CLSI H62 process for a laboratory‐initiated assay revision (e.g., specimen numbers for sensitivity, specificity, or precision studies), a rationale based on expert opinion is provided with the understanding that not every laboratory, assay type, and circumstance can be comprehensively addressed in this paper. These recommendations are meant as a practical recommendation and are not intended to be restrictive, prescriptive, or understood as necessarily sufficient to meet every specific requirement from regulatory bodies (e.g., FDA or New York State Department of Health).