Hultin Lance E, Menendez Frederick A, Hultin Patricia M, Jamieson Beth D, O'Gorman Maurice R G, Borowski Luann, Matud Jose L, Denny Thomas N, Margolick Joseph B
Department of Medicine, Cellular Immunology and Cytometry, University of California, Los Angeles, California, USA.
Cytometry B Clin Cytom. 2007 Jul;72(4):249-55. doi: 10.1002/cyto.b.20176.
The continuous improvement and evolution of immune cell phenotyping requires periodic upgrading of laboratory methods and technology. Flow cytometry laboratories that are participating in research protocols sponsored by the NIAID are required to perform "switch" studies to validate performance before methods for T-cell subset analysis can be changed.
Switch studies were conducted among the four flow cytometry laboratories of the Multicenter AIDS Cohort Study (MACS), comparing a 2-color, lyse-wash method and a newer, 3-color, lyse no-wash method. Two of the laboratories twice failed to satisfy the criteria for acceptable differences from the previous method. Rather than repeating more switch studies, these laboratories were allowed to adopt the 3-color, lyse no-wash method. To evaluate the impact of the switch to the new method at these two sites, their results with the new method were evaluated within the context of all laboratories participating in the NIH-NIAID-Division of AIDS Immunology Quality Assurance (IQA) proficiency-testing program.
Laboratory performance at these two sites substantially improved relative to the IQA standard test results. Variation across the four MACS sites and across replicate samples was also reduced.
Although switch studies are the conventional method for assessing comparability of laboratory methods, two alternatives to the requirement of repeating failed switch studies should be considered: (1) test the new method and assess performance on the proficiency testing reference panel, and (2) prior to adoption of the new methods, use both the old and the new method on the reference panel samples and demonstrate that performance with the new method is better according to standard statistical procedures. These alternatives may help some laboratories' transition to a new and superior methodology more quickly than if they are required to attempt multiple, serial switch studies.
免疫细胞表型分析的持续改进和发展需要定期更新实验室方法和技术。参与美国国立过敏与传染病研究所(NIAID)资助的研究方案的流式细胞术实验室,在改变T细胞亚群分析方法之前,需要进行“转换”研究以验证性能。
多中心艾滋病队列研究(MACS)的四个流式细胞术实验室进行了转换研究,比较了一种双色、裂解洗涤法和一种更新的三色、免裂解洗涤法。其中两个实验室两次未能满足与先前方法相比可接受差异的标准。这些实验室没有重复进行更多的转换研究,而是被允许采用三色、免裂解洗涤法。为了评估在这两个地点转换到新方法的影响,在参与美国国立卫生研究院-美国国立过敏与传染病研究所-艾滋病免疫学质量保证(IQA)能力验证计划的所有实验室的背景下,评估了它们使用新方法的结果。
相对于IQA标准测试结果,这两个地点的实验室性能有了显著提高。四个MACS地点之间以及重复样本之间的差异也有所减少。
虽然转换研究是评估实验室方法可比性的传统方法,但应考虑两种替代重复失败转换研究要求的方法:(1)测试新方法并在能力验证参考样本上评估性能,(2)在采用新方法之前,在参考样本上同时使用旧方法和新方法,并根据标准统计程序证明新方法的性能更好。这些替代方法可能有助于一些实验室比要求它们尝试多次连续转换研究更快地过渡到一种新的、更优越的方法。