Accreditation of flow cytometry in Europe - Wiley Online Library

Cytometry Part B (Clinical Cytometry) 84B:135–142 (2013)

Original Article

Accreditation of Flow Cytometry in Europe Ulrich Sack,1* David Barnett,2 Gulderen Yanikkaya Demirel,3 Chantal Fossat,4 ¨ rg Stephan Fricke,5 Nikolitsa Kafassi,6 Thomas Nebe,7 Katherina Psarra,8 Jo Steinmann,9 and Claude Lambert10 1

Universita¨t Leipzig, Medizinische Fakulta¨t, Institut fu ¨ r Klinische Immunologie, Johannisallee 30, Leipzig 04103, Germany 2 UK NEQAS for Leucocyte Immunophenotyping, Sheffield S10 2QD, England 3 Yeditepe University, Immunology Department, Stem Cell Laboratory, 26 Agustos Yerleskesi, TIP Fakultesi Kat 6 Oda No 1050 Kayisdagi, Atasehir, Istanbul 34755, Turkey 4 University Hospital Timone, Hematology Laboratory, Marseilles, France 5 Fraunhofer Institute for Cell Therapy and Immunology, Perlickstraße 1, Leipzig 04103, Germany 6 General Hospital of Athens ‘‘Laiko,’’ Dept of Immunology, 17 Agiou Thoma Str., Athens 11527, Hellas 7 Ha¨matologie-Labor Mannheim, Facharztzentrum Collinistraße, Collinistraße 11, Mannheim 68161, Germany 8 Department of Immunology-Histocompatibility, Evangelismos Hospital, Athens, Greece 9 Labor Dr. Fenner & Ko., Bergstr. 14, Hamburg 20095, Germany 10 Immunology Lab CHU/Univ Hospital & Ecole Nationale Supe´rieure des Mines Saint-Etienne, FRE-CNRS 3312, LPMG; SFR INSERM IFRESIS 143, Saint-Etienne, Cedex 2 42055, France

ISO 15189 has been introduced to enable any clinical laboratory, irrespective of geographic location, to be accredited against internationally recognized standards and therefore facilitate direct international comparison of laboratories. Together with increasing use of ISO 15189 for standardization and competition purposes, often triggered by demands of patients and clinicians, clinical flow cytometry laboratories are becoming increasingly challenged to introduce compliant quality management systems. Whilst in most countries, ISO 15189 accreditation is not yet compulsory, there is increasing evidence to suggest that the implementation of this standard is growing. As a result, the European Society of Clinical Cell Analysis (ESCCA) has analysed the impact of accreditation in clinical flow cytometry laboratories. It found, through a discussion forum, that staff qualification, adaptation of multicolour antibody panels, and implementation of a comprehensive quality system (including quality assessment) have been identified C 2013 International Clinical Cytometry Society as major challenges. V Key terms: accreditation; quality control; EQA

How to cite this article: Sack U, Barnett D, Demirel GD, Fossat C, Fricke S, Kafassi N, Nebe T, Psarra K, Steinmann J, Lambert C. Accreditation of flow cytometry in Europe. Cytometry Part B 2013; 84B: 135–142.

INTRODUCTION Flow cytometry is now considered part of the routine repertoire in most clinical diagnostic laboratories for the analysis of peripheral blood cells in variety of disease states. However, in contrast to other laboratory-based procedures, flow cytometry, due to its high complexity, have not yet been standardized to the same level as many other laboratory diagnostics. Twenty years ago, the United Kingdom introduced a voluntary program of accreditation through Clinical Pathology Accreditation (UK) Ltd. with similar programs being introduced in North America. While these efforts to introduce accreditation were embraced in the relevant geographical

C 2013 International Clinical Cytometry Society V

regions, there was little standardization between the processes involved. However, in recent years several ISO Grant sponsor: German Federal Ministry of Education and Research; BMBF; PtJ-Bio; Grant number: 0315883. *Correspondence to: Ulrich Sack, Universita¨t Leipzig, Medizinische Fakulta¨t, Institut fu¨r Klinische Immunologie, Johannisallee 30, Leipzig 04103, Germany. E-mail: [email protected] Received 17 August 2012; Revision 13 January 2013; Accepted 16 January 2013 Published online 28 March 2013 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI: 10.1002/cyto.b.21079

136

SACK ET AL.

standards have been introduced, ISO 15189 (developed and for medical laboratories from the standard ISO/IEC 17025) and ISO/IEC 17043 that is specific for providers of external quality assessment (EQA or proficiency testing (PT)) programs with the aim of facilitating parity in accreditation processes and thus ensuring that laboratories in different geographical regions that achieve ISO 15189 accreditation operate in a similar manner and provide similar levels of service. However, passing an accreditation process is still a real challenge and involves an enormous amount of work and effort by all staff involved. WHAT IS ACCREDITATION? Accreditation, ‘‘a third-party recognition of competence to perform specific tasks,’’ attests that a laboratory has been successful in meeting the requirements of international accreditation standards (1). For medical laboratories, confirms the successful implementation of elements of a comprehensive quality management system according to ISO 15189:2007. The standard ISO 15189 ‘‘Medical laboratories—Particular requirements for quality and competence’’ was first published in 2003 by the International Organization of Standardization and is the first internationally accepted set of requirements specifically designed for the medical laboratory (2,3). ISO 15189 is specific to clinical laboratories and was adopted to fit conditions in clinical laboratories. In contrast, ISO 9001 is a certification standard providing generic criteria for quality management systems, originally and most often applied as manufacturing standard (for industry). When used for certification purposes, the formal attestation of compliance with ISO 9001 does not imply any attestation of competence. Clinical flow cytometry is usually placed within an accredited clinical sector, for example in immunology or hematology. However, ISO 15189 does not include any specific flow cytometry standards or criteria. Accreditation should demonstrate that the methods and techniques used are used in the proper application, respond to the requirements for patient care, and that the laboratory is fully competent in the specific method. However, accreditation also helps to improve laboratory management by providing a better understanding of the laboratory structures and processes to achieve a consistently high level of quality every day. It helps reduce the risk of failure and enhances confidence from patients, physicians, hospitals, and contract partners. It is assumed that accredited laboratories produce quality assessment (QA) reproducible results. Furthermore, by clarifying and formalizing its procedures, the laboratory will also improve its governance, process transparency, and diagnostic support, but in the main, diagnostic quality will be improved (4). So, all risks and incertitude due to the daily practice of a diagnostic laboratory can be better controlled and routine can be improved by the accreditation process. Accreditation impels the tracking of samples, reagents, and processes and keeps a record

for possible retrospective enquiry from the preanalytical to the postanalytical phases. It should be stressed at this point that accreditation is different from certification; accreditation is awarded directly by the national accreditation body, not by accredited certification sites. The European Cooperation for Accreditation (EA) is a nonprofit organization that networks national accreditation bodies located in Europe. The members of the EA have signed a multilateral recognition agreement to recognize equivalence and reliability. Therefore, there is an agreement on accreditation across Europe. The International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation (ILAC) is the international umbrella organization that covers all national and regional accreditation organizations in the field of laboratories and inspection bodies. Accreditation is also not standardization. Standardization of methods aims to homogenize processes, instruments, and reagents to get highly similar results. This may imply the choice of common tools or parameters and is of course of very high interest for sharing data especially in interlaboratory trials. In contrast, accreditation means that the lab has established processes that lead to robust and comparable data generation, regardless of the process used to generate that data. Accreditation does not dictate that all laboratories should work in the exactly same way, but ensures that quality procedures are in place to monitor the processes and identify and address any untoward instances to improve their services and prevent errors. Therefore, laboratories intending to obtain and retain accreditation must formalise all procedures relevant to reaching such a quality level and should maintain records with reference to international standards. Accreditation is the confirmation by a national accreditation body that these processes are in use. However, ISO 15189 requirements go far beyond the typical quality assessment (QA) measures in the analytical phase of medical laboratory analysis. The standard includes criteria for the examination of management competence and impartiality, review of contracts, competency of personnel as result of qualification, training, compliance evaluation, competency assessment and professional development, environmental conditions, laboratory equipment, the preanalytical phase, analytical procedures, and the postanalytical phase including reporting of results. The aim of accreditation according to ISO 15189 is to provide assurance, reliability, and reproducibility of test results for patients and laboratory staff independent of location and thus, in turn, drive up quality. It is a generic standard designed to be applied to any clinical laboratory irrespective of the offered medical laboratory disciplines or tests. Essentially, ISO 15189 accreditation is divided into two distinct areas: management and technical. The former details the general principles that need to be applied by laboratory management with specific emphasis on the quality management system, education, and training. The technical section covers every stage of

Cytometry Part B: Clinical Cytometry

ACCREDITATION OF FLOW CYTOMETRY IN EUROPE

137

laboratory work ranging from system implementation and selection to participation in EQA programs, particularly emphasizing that participation in ISO/IEC 17043 accredited EQA programmes is recommended. For each test undertaken, the laboratory should have a written policy to identify and define potential errors and risks so that these are dealt with in an appropriate and timely fashion. Therefore, these standards are designed to ensure that every clinical laboratory, irrespective of geographical location, has a prescribed and agreed set of protocols. Exactly how these standards are implemented is the responsibility of each laboratory providing that there is documentary and auditable evidence for standard compliance. For example, ISO 15189 does not state how to implement or write a Quality Management System (QMS) or Standard Operating Procedures (SOP), but it does define the minimum criteria expected for such documents and that they must be in place to achieve accreditation: in essence, write down exactly what you do, do what is written, and document that you have done it (5). The accreditation procedure therefore helps formalise the process.

courses in this field. They help clinical cytometrists by giving advice, explaining guidelines, and offering blueprints. This will contribute to harmonisation in quality improvement in cytometric labs (Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI), formerly National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards (NCCLS); MiFlowCyt) (10–12). The European system of accreditation resembles in several points ‘‘good laboratory practice’’ (GLP) (13) as known from the United States, but includes more aspects than GLP. Interestingly, GLP is used in Europe for safety testing, e.g., during preclinical drug development, but has not been adapted for use in Europe and is not a recognized international standard. The College of American Pathologists (CAP) accreditation program (14) also differs mainly from ISO 15189 requirements. For U.S.-driven clinical trials applying for FDA approval, requirements should be fulfilled in those laboratories that have achieved ISO 15189. A comparison between 15189 accreditation and FDA rules can be found here (15).

NATIONAL IMPLEMENTATION Although ISO 15189 is not compulsory across the EU, countries such as France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom, have driven the adoption of accreditation, via professional bodies, societies, and customers. Table 1 details the agencies charged with granting accreditation. As stated earlier, ISO 15189 is not test or technique specific and therefore flow cytometry is usually, for example in the UK, accredited within the process of the department where it resides. Today, more and more laboratories working on flow cytometry are in the process of accreditation.

STEPS TO FOLLOW WHEN UNDERGOING ACCREDITATION Accreditation is a continuous process, starting after adequate structures and processes have been established and ongoing after the first assessment. Accreditation bodies offer support and information such as interview forms, checklists, or recommendations to smooth the process; and, many consensus documents and guidelines do exist specifically for flow cytometry, such as the global consensus protocols of the NCCLS (Global Consensus Standardization for Health Technologies) (16). Following the decision to apply for accreditation, there are several tasks that need to be accomplished by the laboratory management. For a successful outcome, dedicated personnel are critical and there must be a quality manager in place who oversees the whole process and should be independent from the technical staff so that objectivity can be obtained. All levels of staff should be encouraged to embrace the process. The key to success is accurate record keeping and documentation. Everything undertaken in the laboratory needs to be documented and traceable. Although it is laborious, once started and understood by the personnel, it becomes a natural component of the daily work and is beneficial for all related parties. Responsibilities for each and every position in the laboratory must be defined in detail. The central document to the whole process is the quality manual. This must describe in detail the structure and the processes undertaken within the laboratory. Furthermore, SOPs and additional documents will describe and explain how a procedure is to be performed. SOPs may also include related activities such as how quality control is undertaken how and who interprets the results, how to recognize spurious results, and what actions to take in the case of nonconformity. It is worth establishing checklists and undertaking regular

FURTHER GUIDELINES Besides accreditation, various systems have been established with the same purpose, but under different basic conditions. These approaches do not replace accreditation and are independent of it, despite parallels in the underlying quality management approaches. For example, in transfusion medicine, flow cytometry processes for quality control are subject to appropriate Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) regulations. Similarly, anti-doping laboratories must follow WADA standards (6). The European Federation for Immunogenetics (EFI) has established standards (currently version 5.3) for histocompatibility testing or for cross match by flow cytometry (7). Furthermore, the British Association of Research Quality Assurance (BARQA) and the NIH/ NIAID/DAIDS have published guidelines for Good Clinical Laboratory Practice (GCLP) for laboratory investigation within clinical trials (8,9). Some pathology disciplines have established expert groups to identify areas where guidelines are required and recommend the application of relevant national/ international guidelines. There are also many peer reviewed guidelines and professional development


138

SACK ET AL.

Table 1 National Accreditation Bodies in Europe Country Austria Belgium Bulgaria Croatia Czech Republik Cyprus Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Italy Kosovo Latvia Lithuania

Body

Alternative system

BMWFJ: Federal Ministry for Economy, Family and Youth BELAC: Belgian Accreditation Structure BAS: Bulgarian Accreditation Service HAA: Croatian Accreditation Agency CAI: Ceskaˆ Institut pro Akreditaci, o.p.s. CYS-CYSAB: Cyprus Organization for the Promotion of Quality DANAK: The Danish Accreditation and Metrology Fund EAK: Estonian Accreditation Centre FINAS: Finnish Accreditation Service COFRAC: Comite Francais d‘Accreditation DAkkS: Deutsche Akkreditierungsstelle

Turkey

ESYD: Hellenic Accreditation System NAT: Hungarian Accreditation Board ISAC-Accreditation: Icelandic Patent Office INAB: Irish National Accreditation Board ACCREDIA: Italian Accreditation Body; Regions DAK: Kosovo Accreditation Directorate LATAK: Latvian National Accreditation Bureau State Health Care Accreditation Agency under the Ministry of Health OLAS: Luxembourg Office of Accreditation IARM: Institute for Accreditation NAB-Malta: National accreditation board ATCG: Accreditation Body of Montenegro CCKL NA: Norwegian Accreditation PCA: Polish Centre for Accreditation IPAC: Portuguese Institute for Accreditation RENAR: Romanian Accreditation Association (Asociatia de Acreditare din Romania) STC-IS: Scientific Technical Centre on Industrial Safety ATS: Accreditation Body of Serbia SNAS: Slovak National Accreditation Service Ministry of health: SA: Slovenska Akreditacija ENAC: Entidad Nacional de Acreditacion (Spain) SWEDAC: Swedish Board for Accreditation and Conformity Assessment SAS: State Secretariat for Economic Affairs (SECO), Swiss Accreditation Service TURKAK: Turkish Accreditation Agency

UK

UKAS: United Kingdom Accreditation Service

Luxembourg FYR of Macedonia Malta Montenegro Netherlands Norway Poland Portugal Romania Russian Federation Serbia Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden Switzerland

audits (vertical, horizontal, and examination) to help in structuring this paperwork and identifying gaps in procedures. REQUIREMENTS FOR THE STAFF The employment and training of qualified staff is a crucial requirement of accreditation and in most countries basic flow cytometry training is provided through general training of medical laboratory scientists. However, in most countries there is no specific and formal flow cytometrists training or certification. Mostly, qualification must be supported by approved certificates and maintained regularly over years of practice with each

GBEA Good biological practices guidelines Guidelines by the German Medical Association, compulsory

Good laboratory practices

Good biological practices guidelines

Minimal requirements for clinical laboratories published by Ministry of Health

country having its own qualification system for maintaining medical laboratory scientist certification (Table 2). TEST VALIDATION Every method applied in the laboratory must be validated or verified, especially if ‘‘in-house’’ methods are being used. Like any diagnostic laboratory, flow cytometry laboratories must run validated tests. In contrast to most tests in clinical chemistry, only a minority of diagnostic panels can be introduced to flow cytometric laboratories without adaptations. Many tests have been developed and scientifically validated for flow cytometry without any gold standard references (Table 3). In early 2000, an initiative was established to develop reference


139


Table 2 Qualification of Flow Cytometrists in Accredited Labs Country

Qualification

Certified by

France

Medical biologist (MD, Pharma D) Engineers Biology technician Immunologist DGfI Laboratory physician Medical biopathologist Medical hematologist Laboratory scientist

French health ministry/National university boards French teaching ministry No specific accreditation for cytometry German Society for Immunology German Medical Association Greek health ministry Greek health ministry Greek registry of clinical chemists (not officially recognized) (also IFCC, EurClinChem) No specific accreditation for cytometry Prospectively: SiBioc (Italian Soc. for clinical chemistry and molecular biology) Licensed by State Health Care Accreditation Agency under the Ministry of Health http://www.vaspvt.gov.lt/en Certification system in progress No specific certification for flow cytometry Licensed on behalf of Ministry of Health by Slovenian Chamber of Laboratory Medicine or Medical Chamber of Slovenia

Germany Greece

Italy

Not yet in place

Lithuania

Laboratory medicine physician

Portugal Slovenia

United Kingdom

Medical biologist Laboratory technician Not yet in place Clinical chemist Medical biologist Laboratory medicine physician Laboratory technician Medical pathologist Clinical scientist and/or biomedical scientist

standards for flow cytometry (EuroStandards) (17), but concluded that as the techniques were not fully validated then reference standards could not be created but rather controls, were at this stage, more likely. Any deviation from the manufacturers’ instructions must be documented and fully validated and these records must be retained. A flow cytometry laboratory applying for ISO 15189 accreditation must validate four areas: instrument validation (ISO 15189 4.6.2, 5.3.2), method validation (ISO 15189 5.5.2), Laboratory Information System validation, and validation of results (ISO 15189 5.8.13). Method validation is potentially the most difficult and time consuming. In Section 5.5.3, linearity, precision, accuracy, limit of detection, sensitivity, and specificity are listed as performance parameters for validation. Therefore, each flow cytometry laboratory needs to design, plan, and perform these validations for each test they report for patients. Once implemented and become routine for the users, methods should be reviewed on a periodic basis as dictated by the quality management system (i.e., quality control/assessment and/or audits or repeated untoward incidents) and should be monitored by the quality manager. Furthermore, often, the object of flow cytometric analysis is to measure the diversity and variability of a widely heterogeneous cell population; for example, leukemia/lymphoma testing is especially characterized by examining the profile of antigen expression and comparing this to normal populations. The complexity of leukaemia diagnostics is dynamic and the technical approaches to undertaking this test are constantly being


Health Professions Council, but no specific qualification for flow cytometry, usually discipline driven

Table 3 Recent Clinical Cytometric Tests 1. Immunophenotyping a. Leukocyte differential (immuno diff) b. Lymphocyte subsets (secondary immunodeficiencies, HIV : : : ) c. Primary immunodeficiencies (SCID, CVID : : : ) d. Lymphoma e. Acute leukemia f. Multiple myeloma g. Stem cells (CD34) h. PNH i. HLA-B27 j. Monocyte immunoparalysis (HLA-DR on monocytes) 2. Nucleic acid analysis a. DNA content (aneuploidy) b. Cell cycle analysis c. RNA content (retics, reticulated platelets) 3. Autoantibodies against : : : a. Platelets (screening for platelet associated immunoglobulin or specific SASPA) b. Neutrophils (IgG) c. Lymphocytes (HIV) d. Donor cells (flow crossmatch in transplantation) 4. Cellular function a. Lymphocyte transformation (Scatter, CD69, BrdU : : : ) b. Cytokine secretion tests (intracellular cytokines) c. NK-Assay (natural killer assay eg. with tumor target cell line K652) d. Phagocytosis e. Oxidative burst f. Chemotaxis g. Basophil degranulation (allergy test) h. Serotonin release (gray platelet syndrome) 5. Dye binding a. EMA-Test for spherocytosis 6. Suspension bead arrays

140

SACK ET AL.

Table 4 EQA Scheme Providers Country Denmark FRANCE

Germany

External quality assurance Immunophenotyping Leukemia/lymphoma CD34 Immunophenotyping Leukemia/lymphoma CD34 PNH Immunophenotyping Leukemia/lymphoma

EQA Distributor UK NEQAS via DEKS STATUS-FLOW Euro Cell diag (R&D systems) AFSAP National agency Task forces Commercial EQC with interlaboratory data management UK NEQAS RFB INSTAND (this program offers EQA services to most European countries as an independent supplier to individual laboratories) UK NEQAS

CD34 PNH Greece Leukemia/lymphoma Helenic Cytometric Society Immunophenotyping UK NEQAS CD34 Italy No regional schemes for FCM Small, local, non-accredited schemes but UK NEQAS delivers EQA services to 168 laboratories Lithuania MRD UK NEQAS CD34 PNH Netherlands No regional schemes for FCM Participation in foreign external quality schemes (INSTAND and UK NEQAS) Portugal No regional schemes for FCM Participation in foreign external quality schemes (INSTAND and UK NEQAS) Slovenia No regional schemes for FCM Participation in foreign external quality schemes (INSTAND and UK NEQAS) Turkey Immunophenotyping Yeditepe/Centro FC PT ILC UK Immunophenotyping UK NEQAS (this program delivers EQA services in all European countries either as official programs such as in Denmark, The Netherlands, Italy, and Portugal or as an independent supplier to individual laboratories) Leukemia/lymphoma, MRD CD34 PNH HLA crossmatch USA Immunophenotyping CAP and UK NEQAS Leukemia/lymphoma CD34 PNH DANN cell cycle Fetal blood ZAP70

reviewed in accordance with the latest opinion/data, particularly with the introduction of new instruments that are capable of multiparametric analysis. There are many working groups attempting to establish international consensus documents, but the challenges are numerous and include: validation of novel tests, generation of normal values, establishing quality control mechanisms (both internal and external), development of international standards, and the harmonization of reporting results. Instruments have to be calibrated and standardized in clearly defined terms. Calibrated results obtained from standardised instruments can be compared objectively and quantitatively with those from other laboratories. Synthetic or biological calibration particles can be used for calibration. Synthetic particles are manufactured from polymers (beads, plastic-beads, latex-beads, microbeads). Biological particles can be stained with the same fluorochromes used for cell staining. For standardization of cytometers, both synthetic and biological particles are applicable according to the IVD specification given by manufacturers with all results plotted on a Levy-Jen-

nings type plots to allow the identification of early problems. INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL QUALITY CONTROL Internal quality control by daily calibration and external control by following external assessment schemes (the latter designed to comply with ISO/IEC 17043) are essential for accreditation. ISO 15189 is a best practice laboratory standard and is not a standardization itself; standardization is driven by EQA. Thereby, cross-site conformity is ensured. In European countries, there are a variety of EQA schemes fulfilling this norm (Table 4). EQA participation creates a network for communication and can be a good tool for enhancing a national laboratory network. Samples received for EQA testing, as well as the information shared by the EQA provider, are also useful for conducting professional development activities. External quality control schemes usually use stabilised whole blood material to reduce the degradation of cells encountered when fresh material is used. With the introduction of ISO/IEC 17043, EQA programmes are now


141


facing the same challenges posed by ISO 15189 in clinical laboratories and have to have fully documented operating procedures including sample stability verification, data handling and reporting, and statistically validated mechanisms to ensure identification of participants who are consistently out of consensus. EQA programmes themselves do not provide certification of either competence to undertake flow cytometry or approve certification. The EQA programs accredited to ISO/IEC 17043 are applied by approved EQA providers and independent assessments take place accordingly. EQA programs (proficiency testing) can only cover these requirements in part, particularly as reference methods (with the exception of immunoplatelet counting) do not exist. Although the task is not straightforward, fulfilling the requirements of accreditation is the best way to improve quality in diagnostic labs. Accreditation forces a quality-driven competition between laboratories and raises standards. WHICH PROBLEMS ARE KNOWN REGARDING FLOW CYTOMETRY ACCREDITATION? In addition to the specific challenges with regard to accreditation in clinical flow cytometry as discussed earlier, there are other challenges that cross all laboratory disciplines. The accreditation process is expensive and time consuming. However, rules for accreditation have been established for highly standardised test systems, for example in clinical chemistry. To apply them to cytometry laboratories, interpretation of ISO 15189 should be adapted to specific points in flow cytometry, such as instrument settings, sample preparation, or performance follow-up. Thus, validation of novel tests, generation of normal values, daily quality control in the absence of international standards, activities to guarantee day-to-day stability of running tests, and interpretation of test results raise lots of challenges for cytometric laboratories. Besides checklists of accreditation bodies, a lot of reference books and articles are very helpful (16,18–28). WHAT IS THE OPINION OF FLOW CYTOMETRISTS ABOUT ACCREDITATION? In 2010, ESCCA made a survey of flow cytometry specialists about accreditation. One hundred fifty-seven participants replied to the questionnaire. Interestingly, 98% agreed with the need for accreditation, although only 19% of them had to undergo accreditation by national law. However, 76% were included in at least one national or international regulatory scheme. WHAT SHOULD BE DONE TO SUPPORT ACCREDITATION IN FLOW CYTOMETRY? The role of scientific communities such as ESCCA is restricted to providing assistance in the form of education in how to achieve and meet these standards. On the basis of this knowledge, ESCCA should provide recommendations that support accreditation bodies when assessing competencies in the field of flow cytometry.


These efforts for laboratories and accreditation bodies could include:

• Recommendation for daily cytometer operation • Offering comparative calibration procedures

between laboratories • Validation of novel panels and advice on how to validate cytometric protocols • Recommendation of harmonised validated and well documented antibody panels with known reference values and clear indications • Critical review of data analysis, expert systems, and gating strategies • Organization of interlaboratory comparisons of best practices • Providing an open access library of ‘‘reference cases’’ and variants (images and FCS files) Furthermore, ESCCA should support EQA providers in offering relevant samples and supporting clinically relevant reporting in EQA schemes. Finally, ESCCA should support continuous certification schemes for individuals showing that they are up-to-date as well as competent to perform and understand clinical flow cytometry. However, there are many challenges to developing a specific clinical cytometry syllabus. The certificate (or exam) would have to be at a high level to attract individuals and ensure that national registration bodies could and would recognize the certificate. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We are grateful to Audrey Braun for proofreading and profoundly improving the manuscript. LITERATURE CITED 1. Guzel O, Guner EI. ISO 15189 accreditation: Requirements for quality and competence of medical laboratories, experience of a laboratory I. Clin Biochem 2009;42:274–278. 2. ISO 15189–1012. Medical Laboratories—Requirements for quality and competence. Geneva: ISO; 2012. 3. Spitzenberger, F, Edelhaeuser R. Accreditation of medical laboratories in Europe: Statutory framework, current situation and perspectives. Transfusion Med Hemotherapy 2006;33:384–392. 4. Schu ¨ ttpelz K. Auswirkungen der Akkreditierung von Pru ¨ flaboratorien und Zertifizierungsstellen von Produkten in Deutschland. Dissertation, Technische Universita¨t Berlin, edocs.tu-berlin.de, 2003. 5. Calaprice A. The Ultimate Quotable Einstein. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 2010. pp 384–385, 475. 6. http://www.wada-ama.org/ 7. http://www.efiweb.org 8. Good Clinical Laboratory Practice (GCLP), BARQA, Jan. 2003. 9. http://www.niaid.nih.gov/labsandresources/resources/daidsclinrsrch/ documents/gclp.pdf 10. http://www.sixsigmaonline.org/ 11. http://www.lean-strategies.com/ 12. Minimum information about a flow cytometry experiment (MIFlowCyt) checklist. Cytometry A 2010;77A:813. 13. http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/chem55/55glpout.htm 14. http://www.cap.org 15. Kramer DB, Xu S, Kesselheim AS. Regulation of medical devices in the United States and European Union. N Engl J Med 2012;366:848–855. 16. Marti GE, Vogt RF, Gaigalas AK, Hixson CS, Hoffman RA, Lenkei R, Magru-der LE, Purvis NB, Schwartz A, Shapiro HM, Waggoner A. Fluorescence calibration and quantitative measurement of fluorescence intensity; Approved guideline. 2004. NCCLS document I/LA24-A (ISBN 1-56238-543-7).

142

SACK ET AL.

17. http://cordis.europa.eu/search/index.cfm?fuseaction¼proj.document& PJ_RCN¼4967499 18. Rothe G, Schmitz G, Adorf D, Barlafe S, Gramatzki M, Hanenberg H, Ho ¨ ffkes HG, Janossy G, Knu ¨ chel R, Ludwig WD, et al. EWGCCA consensus document on leukemia immunophenotyping. Leukemia 1996;10:877–895. 19. Caldwell CW. Role of external quality assurance schemes in assessing and improving quality in medical laboratories. In: Keren DF, McCoy JP, Carey JL, editors. Quality Control and Quality Assurance in Immunophenotyping in Flow Cytometry in Clinical Diagnosis, 3rd ed. Chicago; ASCP Press; 2001. pp 117– 156. 20. Libeer J-C. Role of external quality assurance schemes in assessing and improving quality in medical laboratories. Clin Chim Acta 2001;309:173–177. 21. Shapiro HM. Practical Flow Cytometry. New York: Wiley; 2005. 22. Robinson JP, Darzynkiewicz Z, Hoffman R, Nolan JP, Orfao A, Rabinovitch P, Watkins S. Current Protocols in Cytometry. New York: Wiley; 2007.

23. Davis BH, Holden JT, Bene MC, Borowitz MJ, Braylan RC, Cornfield D, Gorczyca W, Lee R, Maiese R, Orfao A, et al. Bethesda International Consensus recommendations on the flow cytometric immunophenotypic analysis of hematolymphoid neoplasia: Medical Indications, Cytometry B 2007;72B:S5–S13. 24. Wood BL, Arroz M, Barnett D, DiGiuseppe J, Greig B, Kussick SJ, Oldaker T, Shenkin M, Stone E, Wallace P. Bethesda International Consensus recommendations on the flow cytometric immunophenotypic analysis of hematolymphoid neoplasia: Optimal reagents and reporting for the flow cytometric diagnosis of hematopoietic neoplasia. Cytometry B 2007;72B:S14–S22. 25. Preffer F, Lanza F. Issue highlights – May 2012. Cytometry B 2012;82B:v–vi. 26. Whitby A, Whitby L, Fletcher M, Reilly JT, Sutherland DR, Keeney M, Barnett D. ISHAGE protocol: Are we doing it correctly? Cytometry Part B 2012;82B:9–17. 27. Yanikkaya-Demirel G. ISO 15189 accreditation: Requirements for quality and competence of medical laboratories, experience of a laboratory II. Clin Biochem 2009;42:279–283. 28. Sack U, Tarnok A, Rothe G. Cellular Diagnostics. Freiburg: Karger; 2009.
