Citations

Context.— In 2018 the College of American Pathologists Diagnostic Immunology and Flow Cytometry Committee designed and implemented a new plasma cell neoplasia flow cytometry proficiency testing program—PCNEO—to allow clinical flow cytometry laboratories to monitor and assess their performance compared with a peer group. Objective.— To report the results from the first 4 years of the PCNEO program. Design.— Program participants were sent 2 sets of challenges per year, each including 1 wet challenge and 2 dry challenges, with associated clinical and laboratory findings. The wet challenges were composed of myeloma cell line specimens (with or without dilution in preserved whole blood) for flow cytometric analysis. The dry (paper) challenges were composed of clinical case summaries and images of flow cytometric test results from various flow cytometry laboratories of committee members. Results.— A total of 116 to 145 laboratories from 17 countries enrolled in the proficiency testing program. For the wet challenges, almost all participants (97%–100%; cumulative, 98.2%) correctly identified the presence of neoplastic plasma cell populations based on flow cytometric analysis of undiluted myeloma cell lines. Slightly fewer participants (89.0%–97.4%; cumulative, 95.2%) correctly identified the presence of neoplastic plasma cell populations based on flow cytometric analysis of diluted myeloma cell lines (10% or 50% dilutions into peripheral blood) intended to better represent a typical clinical sample. There was generally agreement among 80% or more of participants for positive or negative staining for CD38, CD138, CD19, CD20, and surface and cytoplasmic κ and λ light chains. Similarly, 84% to 100% of participants were able to correctly identify the presence of neoplastic plasma cell populations in paper challenges, including the presence of small, neoplastic plasma cell populations (0.01%–5.0% clonal plasma cells) and the presence of nonneoplastic plasma cell populations (correctly identified by 91%–96% of participants). Conclusions.— Participant performance in the new proficiency testing program was excellent overall, with the vast majority of participants able to perform flow cytometric analysis and identify neoplastic plasma cell populations and to identify small plasma cell clones or expanded populations of reactive plasma cells in dry challenge flow cytometry results. This program will allow laboratories to verify the accuracy of their testing program and test interpretations for the assessment of patients suspected of having a plasma cell neoplasm.

Context.— Misdiagnosis of antiphospholipid syndrome can occur owing to the wide diversity of antiphospholipid (aPL) assays and a lack of international calibrators and harmonized reference intervals. Objective.— To assess laboratory practices regarding reporting and establishing reference intervals for immunoglobulin (Ig) G/IgM anti-cardiolipin (aCL) and anti–beta-2 glycoprotein I (anti-β2GPI) assays. Design.— Supplemental questions related to reporting and establishing reference ranges for aPL assays were sent as part of the Antiphospholipid Antibody (ACL)-B 2019 College of American Pathologists (CAP) proficiency testing survey. The response rate and methods assessment details were determined, as well as qualitative and quantitative results for 3 test samples. Results.— The number of participants reporting results for IgG aCL (n = 489), IgM aCL (n = 476), IgG anti-β2GPI (n = 354), and IgM anti-β2GPI (n = 331) varied by antibody type. The enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) (up to 58.6%, 260 of 444) was the most used method; others included multiplex (from 18.9% to 23.9%), fluorescence enzyme immunoassay (14.4%–17.6%), and chemiluminescence immunoassay (6.5%–9.0%). More respondents reported quantitative than qualitative results, and manufacturer cutoff ranges were used by 92.9% and 94.2% of respondents for aCL and anti-β2GPI, respectively. Despite variation in the use of semiquantitative ranges, qualitative negative/positive reporting of the test samples achieved almost 100% consensus. Qualitative consensus was met in contrast to the wide range of quantitative results obtained for each analyte across different kits. Conclusions.— ELISA remains the most used method for detecting aPL antibodies, with most laboratories reporting quantitative results based on manufacturers' suggested reference ranges. The categorization of quantitative results as equivocal, weak positive, or positive for responders using kits from the same manufacturer was variable.

Context.— Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a recently emerged, currently pandemic virus, and the etiologic agent of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Clinical testing for antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 has rapidly become widespread, but data regarding the interlaboratory performance of these serologic assays are limited. Objective.— To describe the development and initial results of the College of American Pathologists (CAP) SARS-CoV-2 Serology Survey. Design.— Members from the CAP Microbiology and Diagnostic Immunology and Flow Cytometry Committees formed a working group to support development of a new proficiency testing survey for anti–SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays. Supplemental questions in the survey assessed the state of SARS-CoV-2 serologic testing among participating laboratories as of July 2020. Results were analyzed for agreement by immunoglobulin (Ig) isotype tested, assay manufacturer, and methodology. Results.— A total of 4125 qualitative results were received from 1110 laboratories participating in the first survey. Qualitative agreement for assays measuring anti–SARS-CoV-2 total antibodies or IgG was greater than 90% for all 3 samples in the survey. Qualitative agreement for IgM and IgA for the negative sample was greater than 95%, but lacked consensus for the other 2 samples. Conclusions.— These initial data suggest overall excellent agreement and comparable performance for most qualitative anti–SARS-CoV-2 IgG and total antibody assays across all participating clinical laboratories, regardless of specific target antigen or assay methodology.

Context.— Serum tests used for the screening and diagnosis of monoclonal gammopathies include serum protein electrophoresis (SPE; agarose gel or capillary zone), immunofixation (IFE) and immunosubtraction capillary electrophoresis, serum free light chains, quantitative immunoglobulins, and heavy/light–chain combinations. Urine protein electrophoresis and urine IFE may also be used to identify Bence-Jones proteinuria. Objective.— To assess current laboratory practice for monoclonal gammopathy testing. Design.— In April 2016, a voluntary questionnaire was distributed to 923 laboratories participating in a protein electrophoresis proficiency testing survey. Results.— Seven hundred seventy-four laboratories from 38 countries and regions completed the questionnaire (83.9% response rate; 774 of 923). The majority of participants (68.6%; 520 of 758) used agarose gel electrophoresis as their SPE method, whereas 31.4% (238 of 758) used capillary zone electrophoresis. The most common test approaches used in screening were SPE with reflex to IFE/immunosubtraction capillary electrophoresis (39.3%; 299 of 760); SPE only (19.1%; 145 of 760); SPE and IFE or immunosubtraction capillary electrophoresis (13.9%; 106 of 760); and SPE with IFE, serum free light chain, and quantitative immunoglobulins (11.8%; 90 of 760). Only 39.8% (305 of 767) of laboratories offered panel testing for ordering convenience. Although SPE was used by most laboratories in diagnosing new cases of myeloma, when laboratories reported the primary test used to follow patients with monoclonal gammopathy, only 55.7% (403 of 724) chose SPE, with the next most common selections being IFE (18.9%; 137 of 724), serum free light chain (11.7%; 85 of 724), and immunosubtraction capillary electrophoresis (2.1%; 15 of 724). Conclusions.— Ordering and testing practices for the screening and diagnosis of monoclonal gammopathy vary widely across laboratories. Improving utilization management and report content, as well as recognition and development of laboratory-directed testing guidelines, may serve to enhance the clinical value of testing.

Context.— The Q-Tracks program, created in 1999, is a quality monitoring subscription service offered by the College of American Pathologists. Objective.— To establish benchmarks in quality metrics, monitor changes in performance over time, and identify practice characteristics associated with better performance. Design.— The Q-Tracks program provides ongoing study of multiple metrics offered in most laboratory disciplines. The design enables measuring the effects of process changes and comparisons with other participating laboratories. Each laboratory Q-Tracks monitor has a primary quality indicator and additional secondary indicators. Results.— To date, 19 Q-Tracks monitors have been offered, with 12 currently active monitors. Q-Tracks are primarily conducted in hospital-based laboratories in the United States, Canada, and 21 other countries. Common to most Q-Tracks monitors is a demonstration of performance improvement by subscribers with long-term participation. This finding was seen in preanalytic, turnaround time, and postanalytic measures. Q-Tracks monitors contribute to the overall demonstration and improvement of laboratory and hospital quality because they address core quality measures for the College of American Pathologists Laboratory Accreditation Program and multiple Joint Commission National Patient Safety Goals. Conclusions.— The Q-Tracks program has established multiple benchmarks in most disciplines of the laboratory and has demonstrated significant performance improvement in benchmarks and individual laboratories over time.