Abstract
Background:
Recently, the total prostate-specific antigen (PSA) assay used in a laboratory had a positive bias of 0.03 μg/L, which went undetected. Consequently, a number of post-prostatectomy patients with previously undetectable PSA concentrations (defined as <0.03 μg/L in that laboratory) were being reported as having detectable PSA, which suggested poorer prognosis according to clinical guidelines.
Methods:
Through numerical simulations, we explored (1) how a small bias may evade the detection of routine quality control (QC) procedures with specific reference to the concentration of the QC material, (2) whether the use of ‘average of normals’ approach may detect such a small bias, and (3) describe the use of moving sum of number of patient results with detectable PSA as an adjunct QC procedure.
Results:
The lowest QC level (0.86 μg/L) available from a commercial kit had poor probability (<10%) of a bias of 0.03 μg/L regardless of QC rule (i.e. 1:2S, 2:2S, 1:3S, 4:1S) used. The average number of patient results affected before error detection (ANPed) was high when using the average of normals approach due to the relatively wide control limits. By contrast, the ANPed was significantly lower for the moving sum of number of patient results with a detectable PSA approach.
Conclusions:
Laboratory practitioners should ensure their QC strategy can detect small but critical bias, and may require supplementation of ultra-low QC levels that are not covered by commercial kits with in-house preparations. The use of moving sum of number of patient results with a detectable result is a helpful adjunct QC tool.
Author contributions: All the authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this submitted manuscript and approved submission.
Research funding: None declared.
Employment or leadership: None declared.
Honorarium: None declared.
Competing interests: The funding organization(s) played no role in the study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; or in the decision to submit the report for publication.
References
1. Heidenreich A, Bastian PJ, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, Joniau S, van der Kwast T, et al. Part II: treatment of advanced, relapsing, and castration-resistant prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2014;65:467–79.10.1016/j.eururo.2013.11.002Search in Google Scholar PubMed
2. Sikaris K, Pehm K, Wallace M, Picone D, Frydenberg M. Review of serious failures in reported test results for prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing of patients by SA Pathology. Available at: http://www.sapathology.sa.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/1fa1d43f-08ab-49e0-9875-369da73bc731/Final+Report+-+SA+PSA+Review+-+July+2016.pdf?MOD=AJPERES. Accessed: 13 Oct 2016.Search in Google Scholar
3. Algeciras-Schimnich A, Bruns DE, Boyd JC, Bryant SC, La Fortune KA, Grebe SK. Failure of current laboratory protocols to detect lot-to-lot reagent differences: findings and possible solutions. Clin Chem 2013;59:1187–94.10.1373/clinchem.2013.205070Search in Google Scholar PubMed
4. Loh TP, Lee LC, Sethi SK, Deepak DS. Clinical consequences of erroneous laboratory results that went unnoticed for 10 days. J Clin Pathol 2013;66:260–1.10.1136/jclinpath-2012-201165Search in Google Scholar PubMed
5. Liu J, Tan CH, Loh TP, Badrick T. Verification of out-of-control situations detected by “average of normal” approach. Clin Biochem 2016;49:1248–53.10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2016.07.012Search in Google Scholar PubMed
6. Reichlin T, Twerenbold R, Reiter M, Steuer S, Bassetti S, Balmelli C, et al. Introduction of high-sensitivity troponin assays: impact on myocardial infarction incidence and prognosis. Am J Med 2012;125:1205–13.10.1016/j.amjmed.2012.07.015Search in Google Scholar PubMed
7. Aldous SJ, Richards M, Cullen L, Troughton R, Than M. Diagnostic and prognostic utility of early measurement with high-sensitivity troponin T assay in patients presenting with chest pain. Can Med Assoc J 2012;184:E260–8.10.1503/cmaj.110773Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
8. Kawahara C, Tsutamoto T, Nishiyama K, Yamaji M, Sakai H, Fujii M, et al. Prognostic role of high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T in patients with nonischemic dilated cardiomyopathy. Circ J 2011;75:656–61.10.1253/circj.CJ-10-0837Search in Google Scholar PubMed
9. Fleming JK, Katayev A. Changing the paradigm of laboratory quality control through implementation of real-time test results monitoring: For patients by patients. Clin Biochem 2015;48:508–13.10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2014.12.016Search in Google Scholar PubMed
10. Hoffmann RG, Waid ME. The “average of normals” method of quality control. Am J Clin Pathol 1965;43:134–41.10.1093/ajcp/43.2.134Search in Google Scholar PubMed
11. Kazmierczak SC. Laboratory quality control: using patient data to assess analytical performance. Clin Chem Lab Med 2003;41:617–27.10.1515/CCLM.2003.093Search in Google Scholar PubMed
12. Jones GR. Average of delta: a new quality control tool for clinical laboratories. Ann Clin Biochem 2016;53(Pt 1):133–40.10.1177/0004563215581400Search in Google Scholar PubMed
13. Wilson A, Roberts WL, Pavlov I, Fontenot J, Jackson B. Patient result median monitoring for clinical laboratory quality control. Clin Chim Acta 2011;412:1441–6.10.1016/j.cca.2011.04.024Search in Google Scholar PubMed
14. Katayev A, Fleming JK. Patient results and laboratory test accuracy. Int J Health Care Qual Assur 2014;27:65–70.10.1108/IJHCQA-09-2012-0092Search in Google Scholar PubMed
Supplemental Material:
The online version of this article offers supplementary material (DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2016-0950).
©2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
