Finlay MacKenzie

The Importance of Commutability of Reference Materials Used as Calibrators: The Example of Ceruloplasmin

BACKGROUND Different methods for ceruloplasmin tend to give different results in external quality assessment schemes. During the production of the certified reference material ERM-DA470k/IFCC discrepant measurement results were also found for ceruloplasmin measured with different methods, and consequently the protein could not be certified in the material. METHODS We performed a commutability study with 30 serum samples and the reference materials ERM-DA470, ERM-DA470k/IFCC, and ERM-DA472/IFCC, using 6 different methods. Data were analyzed according to the CLSI Guideline C53-A to assess whether the reference materials had the same behavior as the serum samples with respect to measurement results obtained with combinations of the methods used. RESULTS Measurement results from different methods showed a good linear correlation for the serum samples. ERM-DA470 showed marked noncommutability for certain combinations of methods. ERM-DA470k/IFCC and ERM-DA472/IFCC were commutable for more combinations of methods. The lack of commutability of ERM-DA470 for certain combinations of methods correlates with results from the UK National External Quality Assessment Service showing discrepancies between results from these methods. For serum stored in the presence of sodium azide the results from different methods are essentially equivalent. CONCLUSIONS Ceruloplasmin in ERM-DA470 is a fully documented example of a situation in which, due to lack of commutability, the use of a common material for calibration did not lead to harmonization .

A Progress Report of the IFCC Committee for Standardization of Thyroid Function Tests

Background: The IFCC Committee for Standardization of Thyroid Function Tests aims at equivalence of laboratory test results for free thyroxine (FT4) and thyrotropin (TSH). Objectives: This report describes the phase III method comparison study with clinical samples representing a broad spectrum of thyroid disease. The objective was to expand the feasibility work and explore the impact of standardization/harmonization in the clinically relevant concentration range. Methods: Two sets of serum samples (74 for FT4, 94 for TSH) were obtained in a clinical setting. Eight manufacturers participated in the study (with 13 FT4 and 14 TSH assays). Targets for FT4 were set by the international conventional reference measurement procedure of the IFCC; those for TSH were based on the all-procedure trimmed mean. The manufacturers recalibrated their assays against these targets. Results: All FT4 assays were negatively biased in the mid- to high concentration range, with a maximum interassay discrepancy of approximately 30%. However, in the low range, the maximum deviation was approximately 90%. For TSH, interassay comparability was reasonable in the mid-concentration range, but worse in the pathophysiological ranges. Recalibration was able to eliminate the interassay differences, so that the remaining dispersion of the data was nearly entirely due to within-assay random error components. The impact of recalibration on the numerical results was particularly high for FT4. Conclusions: Standardization and harmonization of FT4 and TSH measurements is feasible from a technical point of view. Because of the impact on the numerical values, the implementation needs careful preparation with the stakeholders.

The use of error and uncertainty methods in the medical laboratory

Abstract Error methods – compared with uncertainty methods – offer simpler, more intuitive and practical procedures for calculating measurement uncertainty and conducting quality assurance in laboratory medicine. However, uncertainty methods are preferred in other fields of science as reflected by the guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement. When laboratory results are used for supporting medical diagnoses, the total uncertainty consists only partially of analytical variation. Biological variation, pre- and postanalytical variation all need to be included. Furthermore, all components of the measuring procedure need to be taken into account. Performance specifications for diagnostic tests should include the diagnostic uncertainty of the entire testing process. Uncertainty methods may be particularly useful for this purpose but have yet to show their strength in laboratory medicine. The purpose of this paper is to elucidate the pros and cons of error and uncertainty methods as groundwork for future consensus on their use in practical performance specifications. Error and uncertainty methods are complementary when evaluating measurement data.

IFCC Working Group Recommendations for Assessing Commutability Part 1: General Experimental Design

Commutability is a property of a reference material (RM) that relates to the closeness of agreement between results for an RM and results for clinical samples (CSs) when measured by ≥2 measurement procedures (MPs). Commutability of RMs used in a calibration traceability scheme is an essential property for them to be fit for purpose. Similarly, commutability of trueness controls or external quality assessment samples is essential when those materials are used to assess trueness of results for CSs. This report is part 1 of a 3-part series describing how to assess commutability of RMs. Part 1 defines commutability and addresses critical components of the experimental design for commutability assessment, including selection of individual CSs, use of pooled CSs, qualification of MPs for inclusion, establishing criteria for the determination that an RM is commutable, generalization of commutability conclusions to future measurements made with the MPs included in the assessment, and information regarding commutability to be included in the certificate for an RM. Parts 2 and 3 in the series present 2 different statistical approaches to commutability assessment that use fixed criteria related to the medical decisions that will be made using the laboratory test results.

IFCC Working Group Recommendations for Assessing Commutability Part 2: Using the Difference in Bias Between a Reference Material and Clinical Samples

A process is described to assess the commutability of a reference material (RM) intended for use as a calibrator, trueness control, or external quality assessment sample based on the difference in bias between an RM and clinical samples (CSs) measured using 2 different measurement procedures (MPs). This difference in bias is compared with a criterion based on a medically relevant difference between an RM and CS results to make a conclusion regarding commutability. When more than 2 MPs are included, the commutability is assessed pairwise for all combinations of 2 MPs. This approach allows the same criterion to be used for all combinations of MPs included in the assessment. The assessment is based on an error model that allows estimation of various random and systematic sources of error, including those from sample-specific effects of interfering substances. An advantage of this approach is that the difference in bias between an RM and the average bias of CSs at the concentration (i.e., amount of substance present or quantity value) of the RM is determined and its uncertainty estimated. An RM is considered fit for purpose for those MPs for which commutability is demonstrated.

IFCC Working Group Recommendations for Assessing Commutability Part 3: Using the Calibration Effectiveness of a Reference Material

A process is described to assess the commutability of a reference material (RM) intended for use as a calibrator based on its ability to fulfill its intended use in a calibration traceability scheme to produce equivalent clinical sample (CS) results among different measurement procedures (MPs) for the same measurand. Three sources of systematic error are elucidated in the context of creating the calibration model for translating MP signals to measurand amounts: calibration fit, calibrator level trueness, and commutability. An example set of 40 CS results from 7 MPs is used to illustrate estimation of bias and variability for each MP. The candidate RM is then used to recalibrate each MP, and its effectiveness in reducing the systematic error among the MPs within an acceptable level of equivalence based on medical requirements confirms its commutability for those MPs. The RM is declared noncommutable for MPs for which, after recalibration, the CS results do not agree with those from other MPs. When a lack of agreement is found, other potential causes, including lack of calibration fit, should be investigated before concluding the RM is noncommutable. The RM is considered fit for purpose for those MPs where commutability is demonstrated.

Analytical performance specifications for external quality assessment – definitions and descriptions

Abstract External Quality Assurance (EQA) is vital to ensure acceptable analytical quality in medical laboratories. A key component of an EQA scheme is an analytical performance specification (APS) for each measurand that a laboratory can use to assess the extent of deviation of the obtained results from the target value. A consensus conference held in Milan in 2014 has proposed three models to set APS and these can be applied to setting APS for EQA. A goal arising from this conference is the harmonisation of EQA APS between different schemes to deliver consistent quality messages to laboratories irrespective of location and the choice of EQA provider. At this time there are wide differences in the APS used in different EQA schemes for the same measurands. Contributing factors to this variation are that the APS in different schemes are established using different criteria, applied to different types of data (e.g. single data points, multiple data points), used for different goals (e.g. improvement of analytical quality; licensing), and with the aim of eliciting different responses from participants. This paper provides recommendations from the European Federation of Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) Task and Finish Group on Performance Specifications for External Quality Assurance Schemes (TFG-APSEQA) and on clear terminology for EQA APS. The recommended terminology covers six elements required to understand APS: 1) a statement on the EQA material matrix and its commutability; 2) the method used to assign the target value; 3) the data set to which APS are applied; 4) the applicable analytical property being assessed (i.e. total error, bias, imprecision, uncertainty); 5) the rationale for the selection of the APS; and 6) the type of the Milan model(s) used to set the APS. The terminology is required for EQA participants and other interested parties to understand the meaning of meeting or not meeting APS.

An overview of the European Organization for External Quality Assurance Providers in Laboratory Medicine (EQALM)

The European Organisation for External Quality Assurance Providers in Laboratory Medicine (EQALM) was founded in 1996 and currently has members from 29 European countries and 6 countries from outside Europe. EQALM provides a forum for co-operation and exchange of knowledge on quality-related matters in laboratory medicine, especially with regard to external quality assessment (EQA) programs in Europe. In addition, EQALM represent the EQA providers in laboratory medicine at European level vis-ŕ-vis political, professional, scientific and other bodies, including patients’ organisations. To this end EQALM promotes activities such as organizing meetings with scientific and practical themes for members and other interested parties, issuing scientific publications, developing EQA projects and representing laboratory medicine EQA activities within other organisations and networks. EQALM is active in scientific and educational activity in different fields such as survey frequency, haematology, haemostasis, microbiology, nomenclature, virtual microscopy, traceability, accreditation, and quality assurance of the total testing process. The aim of this paper is to give an overview of the EQALM organisation.