Managing Deviating EQA Results: A Survey to Assess the Corrective and Preventive Actions of Medical Laboratories Testing for Oncological Biomarkers

Overview

Journal Diagnostics (Basel)

Specialty Radiology

Date 2020 Oct 21

PMID 33080995

Citations 1

Authors

Cleo Keppens

Ed Schuuring

Elisabeth Mc Dequeker

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Laboratories testing predictive biomarkers in lung and colorectal cancer are advised to participate in external quality assessment (EQA) schemes. This study aimed to investigate which corrective actions were taken by laboratories if predetermined performance criteria were not met, to ultimately improve current test practices. EQA participants from the European Society of Pathology between 2014 and 2018 for lung and colorectal cancer were contacted, if they had at least one analysis error or test failure in the provided cases, to complete a survey. For 72.4% of 514 deviating EQA results, an appropriate action was performed, most often including staff training (15.2%) and protocol revisions (14.6%). Main assigned persons were the molecular biologist (40.0%) and pathologist (46.5%). A change in test method or the use of complex techniques, such as next-generation sequencing, required more training and the involvement of dedicated personnel to reduce future test failures. The majority of participants adhered to ISO 15189 and implemented suitable actions by designated staff, not limited to accredited laboratories. However, for 27.6% of cases (by 20 laboratories) no corrective action was taken, especially for pre-analytic problems and complex techniques. The surveys were feasible to request information on results follow-up and further recommendations were provided.

Citing Articles

Results of a worldwide external quality assessment of cfDNA testing in lung Cancer.

Fairley J, Cheetham M, Patton S, Rouleau E, Denis M, Dequeker E BMC Cancer. 2022; 22(1):759.

PMID: 35820813 PMC: 9275131. DOI: 10.1186/s12885-022-09849-x.

References

van den Broek D, Hiltermann T, Biesma B, Dinjens W, t Hart N, Hinrichs J . Implementation of Novel Molecular Biomarkers for Non-small Cell Lung Cancer in the Netherlands: How to Deal With Increasing Complexity. Front Oncol. 2020; 9:1521. PMC: 6987414. DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2019.01521. View

Cree I, Deans Z, Ligtenberg M, Normanno N, Edsjo A, Rouleau E . Guidance for laboratories performing molecular pathology for cancer patients. J Clin Pathol. 2014; 67(11):923-31. PMC: 4215286. DOI: 10.1136/jclinpath-2014-202404. View

Koopman B, van der Wekken A, Ter Elst A, Hiltermann T, Vilacha J, Groves M . Relevance and Effectiveness of Molecular Tumor Board Recommendations for Patients With Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer With Rare or Complex Mutational Profiles. JCO Precis Oncol. 2022; 4:393-410. DOI: 10.1200/PO.20.00008. View

. The Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988. Health Care Financ Rev. 1990; 10(4):141-6. View

Lindeman N, Cagle P, Beasley M, Chitale D, Dacic S, Giaccone G . Molecular testing guideline for selection of lung cancer patients for EGFR and ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitors: guideline from the College of American Pathologists, International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer, and Association for Molecular.... Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2013; 137(6):828-60. PMC: 4162344. DOI: 10.5858/arpa.2012-0720-OA. View

Keppens C, Dufraing K, van Krieken H, Siebers A, Kafatos G, Lowe K . European follow-up of incorrect biomarker results for colorectal cancer demonstrates the importance of quality improvement projects. Virchows Arch. 2019; 475(1):25-37. PMC: 6611891. DOI: 10.1007/s00428-019-02525-9. View

Jones B, Darcy T, Souers R, Meier F . Staffing benchmarks for clinical laboratories: a College of American Pathologists Q-Probes study of laboratory staffing at 98 institutions. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2012; 136(2):140-7. DOI: 10.5858/arpa.2011-0206-CP. View

Keppens C, Tack V, t Hart N, Tembuyser L, Ryska A, Pauwels P . A stitch in time saves nine: external quality assessment rounds demonstrate improved quality of biomarker analysis in lung cancer. Oncotarget. 2018; 9(29):20524-20538. PMC: 5945546. DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.24980. View

Haffajee Z, Kumar B, Francis G, Peck M, Badrick T . The Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia Quality Assurance Program: Immunohistochemistry Breast Marker Audit Overview 2005-2015. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol. 2017; 27(5):339-344. DOI: 10.1097/PAI.0000000000000621. View

10.

Pillay B, Wootten A, Crowe H, Corcoran N, Tran B, Bowden P . The impact of multidisciplinary team meetings on patient assessment, management and outcomes in oncology settings: A systematic review of the literature. Cancer Treat Rev. 2015; 42:56-72. DOI: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2015.11.007. View

11.

Dufraing K, De Hertogh G, Tack V, Keppens C, Dequeker E, van Krieken J . External Quality Assessment Identifies Training Needs to Determine the Neoplastic Cell Content for Biomarker Testing. J Mol Diagn. 2018; 20(4):455-464. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmoldx.2018.03.003. View

12.

Deans Z, Costa J, Cree I, Dequeker E, Edsjo A, Henderson S . Integration of next-generation sequencing in clinical diagnostic molecular pathology laboratories for analysis of solid tumours; an expert opinion on behalf of IQN Path ASBL. Virchows Arch. 2016; 470(1):5-20. PMC: 5243883. DOI: 10.1007/s00428-016-2025-7. View

13.

OBrien C, Taylor S, OLeary J, Finn S . Molecular testing in oncology: problems, pitfalls and progress. Lung Cancer. 2014; 83(3):309-15. DOI: 10.1016/j.lungcan.2013.12.010. View

14.

Tack V, Spans L, Schuuring E, Keppens C, Zwaenepoel K, Pauwels P . Describing the Reportable Range Is Important for Reliable Treatment Decisions: A Multiple Laboratory Study for Molecular Tumor Profiling Using Next-Generation Sequencing. J Mol Diagn. 2018; 20(6):743-753. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmoldx.2018.06.006. View

15.

Kristensen G, Meijer P . Interpretation of EQA results and EQA-based trouble shooting. Biochem Med (Zagreb). 2017; 27(1):49-62. PMC: 5382861. DOI: 10.11613/BM.2017.007. View

16.

Sciacovelli L, Secchiero S, Padoan A, Plebani M . External quality assessment programs in the context of ISO 15189 accreditation. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2018; 56(10):1644-1654. DOI: 10.1515/cclm-2017-1179. View

17.

van Krieken J, Normanno N, Blackhall F, Boone E, Botti G, Carneiro F . Guideline on the requirements of external quality assessment programs in molecular pathology. Virchows Arch. 2012; 462(1):27-37. DOI: 10.1007/s00428-012-1354-4. View

18.

Normanno N, Fenizia F, Castiglione F, Barberis M, Taddei G, Truini M . External quality assessment for EGFR mutations in Italy: improvements in performances over the time. ESMO Open. 2017; 2(2):e000160. PMC: 5699165. DOI: 10.1136/esmoopen-2017-000160. View

19.

Tack V, Schuuring E, Keppens C, t Hart N, Pauwels P, van Krieken H . Accreditation, setting and experience as indicators to assure quality in oncology biomarker testing laboratories. Br J Cancer. 2018; 119(5):605-614. PMC: 6162254. DOI: 10.1038/s41416-018-0204-9. View

20.

Keppens C, Schuuring E, Dequeker E . Causes behind error rates for predictive biomarker testing: the utility of sending post-EQA surveys. Virchows Arch. 2020; 478(5):995-1006. PMC: 8099794. DOI: 10.1007/s00428-020-02966-7. View