Dataset Information

An Extensive Quality Control and Quality Assurance (QC/QA) Program Significantly Improves Inter-Laboratory Concordance Rates of Flow-Cytometric Minimal Residual Disease Assessment in Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia: An I-BFM-FLOW-Network Report.

ABSTRACT: Monitoring of minimal residual disease (MRD) by flow cytometry (FCM) is a powerful prognostic tool for predicting outcomes in acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). To apply FCM-MRD in large, collaborative trials, dedicated laboratory staff must be educated to concordantly high levels of expertise and their performance quality should be continuously monitored. We sought to install a unique and comprehensive training and quality control (QC) program involving a large number of reference laboratories within the international Berlin-Frankfurt-Münster (I-BFM) consortium, in order to complement the standardization of the methodology with an educational component and persistent quality control measures. Our QC and quality assurance (QA) program is based on four major cornerstones: (i) a twinning maturation program, (ii) obligatory participation in external QA programs (spiked sample send around, United Kingdom National External Quality Assessment Service (UK NEQAS)), (iii) regular participation in list-mode-data (LMD) file ring trials (FCM data file send arounds), and (iv) surveys of independent data derived from trial results. We demonstrate that the training of laboratories using experienced twinning partners, along with continuous educational feedback significantly improves the performance of laboratories in detecting and quantifying MRD in pediatric ALL patients. Overall, our extensive education and quality control program improved inter-laboratory concordance rates of FCM-MRD assessments and ultimately led to a very high conformity of risk estimates in independent patient cohorts.

SUBMITTER: Maurer-Granofszky M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8656726 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionThe metabolomics quality assurance and quality control consortium (mQACC) evolved from the recognized need for a community-wide consensus on improving and systematizing quality assurance (QA) and quality control (QC) practices for untargeted metabolomics.ObjectivesIn this work, we sought to identify and share the common and divergent QA and QC practices amongst mQACC members and collaborators who use liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS) in untargeted metabolomics.MethodsAll authors voluntarily participated in this collaborative research project by providing the details of and insights into the QA and QC practices used in their laboratories. This sharing was enabled via a six-page questionnaire composed of over 120 questions and comment fields which was developed as part of this work and has proved the basis for ongoing mQACC outreach.ResultsFor QA, many laboratories reported documenting maintenance, calibration and tuning (82%); having established data storage and archival processes (71%); depositing data in public repositories (55%); having standard operating procedures (SOPs) in place for all laboratory processes (68%) and training staff on laboratory processes (55%). For QC, universal practices included using system suitability procedures (100%) and using a robust system of identification (Metabolomics Standards Initiative level 1 identification standards) for at least some of the detected compounds. Most laboratories used QC samples (>86%); used internal standards (91%); used a designated analytical acquisition template with randomized experimental samples (91%); and manually reviewed peak integration following data acquisition (86%). A minority of laboratories included technical replicates of experimental samples in their workflows (36%).ConclusionsAlthough the 23 contributors were researchers with diverse and international backgrounds from academia, industry and government, they are not necessarily representative of the worldwide pool of practitioners due to the recruitment method for participants and its voluntary nature. However, both questionnaire and the findings presented here have already informed and led other data gathering efforts by mQACC at conferences and other outreach activities and will continue to evolve in order to guide discussions for recommendations of best practices within the community and to establish internationally agreed upon reporting standards. We very much welcome further feedback from readers of this article.

Project description:The purpose of this study is to evaluate the sensitivities of 3D diode arrays to setup error for patient-specific quality assurance (QA) of volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT). Translational setup errors of ± 1, ± 2, and ± 3 mm in the RL, SI, and AP directions and rotational setup errors of ± 1° and ± 2° in the pitch, roll, and yaw directions were set up in two phantom systems, ArcCHECK and Delta4, with VMAT plans for 11 patients. Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) followed by automatic correction using a HexaPOD 6D treatment couch ensured the position accuracy. Dose distributions of the two phantoms were compared in order to evaluate the agreement between calculated and measured values by using γ analysis with 3%/3 mm, 3%/2 mm, and 2%/2 mm criteria. To determine the impact on setup error for VMAT QA, we evaluated the sensitivity of results acquired by both 3D diode array systems to setup errors in translation and rotation. For the VMAT QA of all patients, the pass rate with the 3%/3 mm criteria exceeded 95% using either phantom. For setup errors of 3 mm and 2°, respectively, the pass rates with the 3%/3mm criteria decreased by a maximum of 14.0% and 23.5% using ArcCHECK, and 14.4% and 5.0% using Delta4. Both systems are sensitive to setup error, and do not have mechanisms to account for setup errors in the software. The sensitivity of both VMAT QA systems was strongly dependent on the patient-specific plan. The sensitivity of ArcCHECK to the rotational error was higher than that of Delta4. In order to achieve less than 3% mean pass rate reduction of VMAT plan QA with the 3%/3 mm criteria, a setup accuracy of 2 mm/1° and 2 mm/2° is required for ArcCheck and Delta4 devices, respectively. The cumulative effect of the combined 2 mm translational and 1° rotational errors caused 3.8% and 2.4% mean pass rates reduction with 3%/3 mm criteria, respectively, for ArcCHECK and Delta4 systems. For QA of VMAT plans for nasopharyngeal cancer (NPC) using the ArcCHECK system, the setup should be more accurate.

Project description:PurposeRoutine quality assurance (QA) of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans used for image-guided radiotherapy is prescribed by the American Association of Physicists in Medicine Task Group (TG)-142 report. For CBCT image quality, TG-142 recommends using clinically established baseline values as QA tolerances. This work examined how image quality parameters vary both across machines of the same model and across different CBCT techniques. Additionally, this work investigated how image quality values are affected by imager recalibration and repeated exposures during routine QA.MethodsCone-beam computed tomography scans of the Catphan 604 phantom were taken on four TrueBeam® and one Edge™ linear accelerator using four manufacturer-provided techniques. TG-142 image quality parameters were calculated for each CBCT scan using SunCHECK Machine™. The variability of each parameter with machine and technique was evaluated using a two-way ANOVA test on a dataset consisting of 200 CBCT scans. The impact of imager calibration on image quality parameters was examined for a subset of three machines using an unpaired Student's t-test. The effect of artifacts appearing on CBCTs taken in rapid succession was characterized and an approach to reduce their appearance was evaluated. Additionally, a set of baselines and tolerances for all image quality metrics was presented.ResultsAll imaging parameters except geometric distortion varied with technique (P < 0.05) and all imaging parameters except slice thickness varied with machine (P < 0.05). Imager calibration can change the expected value of all imaging parameters, though it does not consistently do so. While changes are statistically significant, they may not be clinically significant. Finally, rapid acquisition of CBCT scans can introduce image artifacts that degrade CBCT uniformity.ConclusionsThis work characterized the variability of acquired CBCT data across machines and CBCT techniques along with the impact of imager calibration and rapid CBCT acquisition on image quality.

Dataset Information

An Extensive Quality Control and Quality Assurance (QC/QA) Program Significantly Improves Inter-Laboratory Concordance Rates of Flow-Cytometric Minimal Residual Disease Assessment in Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia: An I-BFM-FLOW-Network Report.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets