Probe Validation Anne Wiktor September 21, 2006. Abnormalities identified by FISH.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
CAP/POCT 2003 Carol Riley-Hunte, RRT Senior Education Specialist Bayer HealthCare.
Advertisements

QUALITY CONTROL IN HEMATOLOGY
Analytical Method Development and Validation
Why do Q.A.? Physician’s Expectations Diagnosis Therapy Technology Physician’s Expectations Diagnosis Therapy Technology.
Quality Assurance Documentation Procedures and Records Stacy M. Howard, MT(ASCP)
Lessons Learned from Measuring Cell Response by Quantitative Automated Microscopy FDA Workshop, Potency Measurements for Cellular and Gene Therapy Products,
We processed six samples in triplicate using 11 different array platforms at one or two laboratories. we obtained measures of array signal variability.
World Health Organization
Dr Samah Kotb Lecturer of Biochemistry 1 CLS 432 Dr. Samah Kotb Nasr El-deen Biochemistry Clinical practice CLS 432 Dr. Samah Kotb Nasr.
Laboratory Quality Control
Quality Assurance.
Estimating a Population Proportion
Statistics for Health Care
This teaching material has been made freely available by the KEMRI-Wellcome Trust (Kilifi, Kenya). You can freely download,
Thoughts on Biomarker Discovery and Validation Karla Ballman, Ph.D. Division of Biostatistics October 29, 2007.
Quality Assurance / Quality Control
CLL Research Consortium FISH studies, Core C June, 2005 NCI Submission.
Unit #7 - Basic Quality Control for the Clinical Laboratory
Quality Assurance.
Quality Assessment 2 Quality Control.
Validation of Analytical Method
Method Selection and Evaluation Method Selection and Evaluation D. Kefaya EL- Sayed Mohamed Prof. Of Clinical Pathology (Clinical Chemistry), Mansoura.
THE MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL OF QUALITY, 5e, © 2002 South-Western/Thomson Learning TM 1 Chapter 12 Statistical Process Control.
The following minimum specified ranges should be considered: Drug substance or a finished (drug) product 80 to 120 % of the test concentration Content.
QUALITY ASSURANCE Reference Intervals Lecture 4. Normal range or Reference interval The term ‘normal range’ is commonly used when referring to the range.
Analytical considerations
Statistical Fundamentals: Using Microsoft Excel for Univariate and Bivariate Analysis Alfred P. Rovai Estimation PowerPoint Prepared by Alfred P. Rovai.
Statistics for Health Care Biostatistics. Phases of a Full Clinical Trial Phase I – the trial takes place after the development of a therapy and is designed.
Quality Control Lecture 5
Human Medical Genetics
New Draft Guidance for Multiplex Tests Elizabeth Mansfield and Michele Schoonmaker Office of In Vitro Diagnostic Device Evaluation and Safety (OIVD) CDRH/FDA.
Laboratory QA/QC An Overview.
Educational Research: Competencies for Analysis and Application, 9 th edition. Gay, Mills, & Airasian © 2009 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.
Statistical Fundamentals: Using Microsoft Excel for Univariate and Bivariate Analysis Alfred P. Rovai Estimation PowerPoint Prepared by Alfred P. Rovai.
Why do we need to do it? What are the basic tools?
Biochemistry Clinical practice CLS 432 Dr. Samah Kotb Lecturer of Biochemistry 2015 Introduction to Quality Control.
Quality control & Statistics. Definition: it is the science of gathering, analyzing, interpreting and representing data. Example: introduction a new test.
Comparability of methods and analysers Nora Nikolac
QC/QA.
Validation Defination Establishing documentary evidence which provides a high degree of assurance that specification process will consistently produce.
Regulatory Issues in Laboratory Management
BME 353 – BIOMEDICAL MEASUREMENTS AND INSTRUMENTATION MEASUREMENT PRINCIPLES.
Wenclawiak, B.: Fit for Purpose – A Customers View© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2003 In: Wenclawiak, Koch, Hadjicostas (eds.) Quality Assurance in.
Quality Control Internal QC External QC. -Monitors a test's method precision and analytical bias. -Preparation of quality control samples and their interpretation.
LECTURE 13 QUALITY ASSURANCE METHOD VALIDATION
L ABORATORY Q UALITY C ONTROL. INTRODUCTION _A major role of the clinical laboratory is the measurement of substances in body fluids or tissues for the.
 Remember Chemistry panel Quality Control:-  In a medical laboratory, it is a statistical process used to monitor and evaluate the analytical process.
 Routine viral diagnostics: indirect and direct detection of viruses. ◦ Indirect detection: serological tests; ◦ Direct detection:  Viral antigens;
SEMINAR ON PRESENTED BY BRAHMABHATT BANSARI K. M. PHARM PART DEPARTMENT OF PHARMACEUTICS AND PHARMACEUTICAL TECHNOLGY L. M. COLLEGE OF PHARMACY.
Diagnostic clinical chemistry
Introduction to Quality Assurance. Quality assurance vs. Quality control.
Quality Assurance.
Quality Assessment.
One-Stage Quantitative
Quality Assurance Procedure Manuals.
Unit #6 - Basic Quality Control for the Clinical Laboratory
Quality Assurance in the clinical laboratory
World Health Organization
Practical clinical chemistry
This teaching material has been made freely available by the KEMRI-Wellcome Trust (Kilifi, Kenya). You can freely download,
Why Use Them? By: Marcy Bolek – Alloway
Quality Assurance Reference Intervals.
Quality Assurance Documentation
Development of an NPM1/MLF1 D-FISH Probe Set for the Detection of t(3;5)(q25;q35) Identified in Patients with Acute Myeloid Leukemia  Umut Aypar, Ryan.
World Health Organization
Introduction To Medical Technology
Quality Control Lecture 3
Intermediate methods in observational epidemiology 2008
Quality Assessment The goal of laboratory analysis is to provide the accurate, reliable and timeliness result Quality assurance The overall program that.
Presentation transcript:

Probe Validation Anne Wiktor September 21, 2006

Abnormalities identified by FISH

Precision Evaluation Study Pilot Study Familiarization Validation Process

Enumeration probe strategy Normal metaphase Abbott Molecular p53 D17Z1

Familiarization Validation Process

  Assess probe performance   Assess equipment   Calculate analytic sensitivity and specificity Familiarization Experiment Objectives

  For each sample, score:   target loci in 20 metaphases   50 interphase nuclei   Record signal pattern of each cell   expected pattern 2R2G 5 normal male PHA-stimulated peripheral bloods Familiarization Experiment

Probe evaluation Probep53D71Z1 Locus17p13.117cen Size ~ 145 Kb ColorOrangeGreen Manufacturer: VysisStrategy:EnumerationLot #: Probe Performance: Large, bright, intact signals, no cross-hybridization Equipment: Standard FISH microscopes and laboratory equipment are suitable

  Analytical specificity:   metaphase (% cells with signals at expected target)   Analytical sensitivity:   metaphase & interphase (% cells with expected signal pattern) Familiarization Experiment # scored − # false positive # scored x 100

Familiarization Results ID Metaphase cells Orange p53Green D17Z1 17p13.1Other17cenOther Analytical sensitivity: 20/20 = 100% Analytical specificity: 20/20 = 100%

Enumeration Scoring Criteria p53 Orange (R), 17cen Green (G), Overlap/Fusion Yellow (F) 1R2G Loss of p53 Normal 2R2G Do not score overlapping cells 1R1G signals Loss of p53 and 17cen Do not score cells with too many or too few signals 2R1G Loss of 17cen Normal 1R1G1F Normal Overlap

Familiarization Results ID Interphase nuclei 2R2G2R1G1R1G1R2G3R3G Analytical sensitivity: 246/250 = 98.4%

Familiarization Experiment signal patterns observed 2R2G 2R1G 1R1G 1R2G

Pilot Study Familiarization Validation Process

  Using previous experience w/ similar FISH strategies:   Establish scoring criteria   Determine number of cells to analyze   From normal samples, determine:   Maximum false-positive nuclei for each signal pattern   Analytical sensitivity   Calculate initial cutoff for normal specimens   Percent cells meeting scoring criteria   Confirm and/or redefine scoring criteria Pilot Study Objectives

How do we…. establish scoring criteria? Normal patterns 2R2G Abnormal patterns 1R2G

Pilot Study   Code and randomize   2 technologists - each score 100 nuclei   Record all signal patterns 5 normal & 5 representative abnormal specimens test intended tissue type

IDTech Expected patterns OtherTotal 2R2G1R2G1R1G2R1G3R3G 1SF KS SF KS SF KS SF KS SF KS SF KS SF KS Pilot Study Results

Pilot Study Summary   Analytical sensitivity   (% cells with expected signal pattern): 94.9%   Initial normal cutoff:   Percent cells meeting scoring criteria: 97.8% False +Cutoff 1R2G97.5 2R1G44.5 1R1G76.5 3R3G12.5

Evaluation Study Pilot Study Familiarization Validation Process

Prepare for clinical evaluation study  Write provisional standard operating procedure  Final review of safety of reagents & procedures  Select controls for clinical practice  Verify number of cells to score is appropriate for FISH strategy and clinical application  100 – 3.0%  200 – 1.5%  500 – 0.6%  6000 – 0.05% 95% CI

Clinical Evaluation Objectives   Simulate clinical practice  Establish normal cutoffs  Define abnormal reference range  Identify new scoring patterns

Clinical Evaluation 25 normal and a set of abnormal specimens; include variants and mosaics   Code and randomize   2 technologists - score cells using pilot study criteria   Record number of cells not meeting criteria   Record signal patterns of atypical cells

Study design   25 “normal” controls   15 abnormal samples   14 - del(17)   1 – del(17)/-17

Analysis of results   Normal cutoff: upper boundary of 95% CI for false-positive cells in normal specimens   Abnormal reference range: lowest & highest % abnormal cells of patient specimens   % of patterns not meeting scoring criteria: identify potential new additional signal patterns   Experimental clinical sensitivity: % correctly identified as true positives   Experimental clinical specificity: % correctly identified as true negatives

Clinical Evaluation Results IDTech Scoreable patterns Total Other “Mental bucket” Normal 2R2G Abnormal 1R2G 2SF KS SF KS SF (1R1G) KS (1R1G) 14SF KS SF KS AW SF KS982100

Normal cutoff based on binomial expansion formula # cells scored False positive cells Normal cutoff is based on 1-sided 95% confidence interval for binomial (N,p) given observed number of abnormal cells Beta inversion function (Microsoft Excel)

Beta Inverse Function

=BETAINV(0.95,12,200) CI # false positive + 1 # cells scored =BETAINV(0.95,12,200)

  Normal cutoffs (based on 200 nuclei with 95% confidence interval)  1R2G = 8.5% (17/200 cells)  1R1G = 6.5% (13/200 cells)  2R1G = 4.5% (9/200 cells)  3R3G = 2.5% (5/200 cells)  All other patterns = 1.5% (3/200 cells) Clinical Evaluation Summary

Cutoffs based on # cells scored # false positive cells/# cells analyzed 3/506/10011/20028/500 % cutoff Max. # false

Workload Recording 44 minutes 13 minutes 8 minutes 4 minutes Initial handling 3 minutes Digital Imaging / Printing 4 minutes 12 minutes Recording/ reporting CYTOGENETICS LABORATORY Specimen processing FISH process Analysis

Precision Evaluation Study Pilot Study Familiarization Validation Process

Precision Objectives   Test the reproducibility of the assay   Confirm that the same result can be obtained consistently and accurately

  Perform & score FISH assay on 10 consecutive days   Precision: mean, SD, & range Precision 1 abnormal with known % of abnormal cells

Mean = 40.0 Precision Testing SD = 2.02 Range =

Precision Evaluation Study Pilot Study Familiarization Validation Process

In clinical practice, validation continues with…. Working Protocol Continuous QC testing Proficiency testing Instrument calibration Employee competency & training Clinical correlation

Wiktor AE, Van Dyke DL, Stupca PJ, Ketterling RP, Dewald G, et al: Preclinical validation of fluorescence in situ hyrbidization assays in clinical practice, Genetics in Medicine 8:16-23, Validation Reference