|
July 2011 |
|
|
Run 32 (General module) was
accomplished April to July 2011. 188 laboratories participated, a
total of 681 slides were assessed, and the corresponding protocols
analyzed. The overall distribution of marks were: optimal 17%, good
27%, borderline 43%, and poor 14%. Thus, the scores are generally
lower than in previous runs, due to very challenging tests. A short
summary of the tests is given below. Click on the epitope name to
see the complete general assessment results for each marker.
CD31: 60%
of the 167 stains submitted were assessed as sufficient in this
third NordiQC test of CD31. The mAb clone JC70A
is the most robust marker for CD31. Interestingly, the RTU formats
and systems from Dako and Ventana provided a higher pass rate (86 %)
than the in-house protocols based on the concentrates (pass rate 62
%). mAb 1A10 constantly gives poor results and should be pruned.
CK-HMW:
Only 23% of the 163 stains submitted were assessed as sufficient in
this fourth NordiQC test of CK-HMW. This is mainly due to
the use of mAb clone 34BE12, which when used with
heat induced epitope retrieval can not be recommended as a marker
for CK-HMW due to an excessive cross reaction with CK-LMW in e.g.
breast ductal epithelial cells giving a false positive staining
reaction.
Ep-CAM:
Only 45% of the 141 stains submitted were assessed as
sufficient in this third NordiQC test of Ep-CAM.
The main problem is the epitope retrieval: For the mAb clone Ber-EP4
HIER in either TRS low pH 6.1 (Dako) or Diva Decloaker pH 6.2
(Biocare) seems mandatory for an optimal performance. For the mAb
clones MOC31 and VU-1D5, HIER in either an alkaline buffer or a
non-alkaline buffer such as Citrate pH 6 could also be used.
MSH6:
Only 33% of the 90 stains submitted were
assessed as sufficient in this first NordiQC test of MSH6. The new
rmAb clones EPR3945 and EP49 appears to perform markedly better than
the old mAb clones 44 and PU29. Efficient HIER in an alkaline buffer
and a sensitive visualizations system are mandatory.
MUM1: 58%
of the 120 stains submitted were assessed
as sufficient in this first NordiQC test of MUM1. Major reasons for
insufficient results are too dilute Ab and insufficient retrieval.
Run B11 (Breast
cancer module) was accomplished in parallel with Run 32. 228
laboratories participated, a total of 472 slides were assessed
and the corresponding protocols analyzed. The
overall distribution of marks were: optimal 70%, good 13%,
insufficient 17% (borderline or poor).
ER: 90% of
the 198 stains submitted were assessed as sufficient in this tenth
NordiQC test of ER, which is the best result ever. mAb clone 6F11
and rmAb clone SP1 gave a higher proportion of sufficient and
optimal results than the mAb clone 1D5, both as concentrates and
Ready-To-Use formats.
|
HER-2
IHC: 83% of the 209 stains submitted were assessed as sufficient
in this eleventh NordiQC test of HER-2 IHC. The in-house systems
still give many false negative results. The scoring consensus is
also not good for labs submitting insufficient stains.
HER-2
BRISH: 63% of the 65 stains submitted were assessed as
sufficient in this fifth NordiQC test of HER-2 BRISH.
The retrieval settings – HIER + proteolysis –
must be carefully balanced between high sensitivity and preserved
morphology. Attention must also be addressed to the interpretation:
In only 35 % of the laboratories obtaining a sufficient result a
correct interpretation was seen.
July 2011
Mogens Vyberg
Scheme director
Figure:
Cytokeratin high molecular weight (CK-HMW) staining of a breast ductal carcinoma
in Run 32. A) With most
antibody clones against CK5 and/or CK14, the staining reaction is negative
as shown here. B)
With clone 34BE12 a strong staining of most tumour cells is seen,
due to a cross reaction with a CK-LMW, probably CK19. This false
positive reaction is misleading in the differential diagnosis of
e.g., basal-type carcinoma. Hence, clone 34BE12 cannot be recommended as
a marker for CK-HMW. |
 |
|
|
|
April 2011 |
|
|
Run
31 (General module) was
accomplished January to April 2011. 183 laboratories
participated, a total of 827 slides were assessed, and the
corresponding protocols analyzed. The overall distribution of marks
were: optimal 26%, good 44%, insufficient 30% (borderline or poor).
A short summary of the tests is given below. Click on the epitope name to
see the complete general assessment results for each marker.
CD30: 77%
of the 172 stains submitted were sufficient but only 29% optimal in
this third NordiQC test of CD30. Too dilute Abs and lack of
efficient HIER are the main causes for suboptimal results. The
proportion of optimal stains decreased from 2009, probably due to
many new labs participating.
CD56: 48%
of the 153 stains were sufficient but only 18% optimal in this first NordiQC test for CD56.
Too diluted Abs is a major cause of suboptimal stains. Moreover,
while the mAb clones 123C3 and 123C3.D5 generally
showed a good performance, they did not work well on the Ventana BenchMark platform.
The number of platform dependent Abs identified are growing, the cause
is currently unknown. The RTU clone 123C3.D5, 760-2625 (Ventana) has been
pruned from the company in 2010 but never the less still used by 10 labs
in this test.
CD68: 82%
of the 157 stains were sufficient but only 24% optimal in this third
test. Once again: Too dilute Abs
and lack of efficient HIER are the main causes for suboptimal
results. However, the clone selection is also of importance:
Among the sufficient
reactions the proportion of optimal stains in all three runs was
considerably higher with clone PG-M1 than with clone KP1 due to a more distinct staining reaction and less cross reaction
with clone PG-M1.
CD163:
90% sufficient stains, 50% optimal. However, only 10 labs submitted a
staining for this emerging marker, using 4 different concentrated
Abs and 1 RTU, which allow no recommendation.
CGA: 75% of
the 170 stains submitted were sufficient but only 35% optimal in
this fourth CGA test. Clone DAK-A3 (DAKO) constantly gives a very
poor performance, and the new clone SP12 (from four companies) gave
insufficient results in all six cases.
MLA: 66% of
the 156 stains submitted were sufficient but only 24% optimal. Clone
A103 is the preferred and best Ab, but requires efficient HIER in an
alkaline buffer and a sensitive non-biotin based detection system
for optimal performance.
|
Run G1 (gastric cancer pilot module) was accomplished in
parallel with run31, comprising
HER-2 IHC
only. 55 labs participated. 51 stains were sufficient, 4 poor, all
the latter based on in-house protocols. The scoring consensus
(participant score vs. assessor group score) was 65% emphasizing the
need for training.
7th April 2011
Mogens Vyberg
Scheme director
|
 |
Fig.: CD56 staining of nerves
in appendix (A,B) and a pancreatic neuroendocrine
carcinoma (C,D). A. Optimal staining of appendix.
B. Staining of appendix using clone 123C3 on a
BenchMark platform, the staining is only slightly
weaker than in (A). C. Optimal staining of
neuroendocrine carcinoma. D. Staining of endocrine
carcinoma using clone 123C3 on a BenchMark platform,
the staining is false negative. Clone 123C3 is
platform dependent! |
| |
|
|
|
|
December 2010 |
|
|
Run
30 (General module) was
accomplished September to December 2010. 174 laboratories
participated, a total of 812 slides were assessed, and the
corresponding protocols analyzed. The overall distribution of marks
were: optimal 36%, good 34%, insufficient 32% (borderline or poor).
A short summary of the tests is given below. Click on the epitope name to
see the complete assessment results for each marker.
CD34: 86% sufficient results,
56% optimal. The
insufficient (borderline or poor) stains were mostly weak
or false negative reactions due to too diluted antibody and/or
insufficient HIER. The new
ready to use (RTU) systems (from 9
companies in this run, all based on mAb clone QBEnd 10) generally
perform well.
CKPAN
(cytokeratin, pan):
65% sufficient results, only 35% optimal. The insufficient stains
were as in previous tests mainly due to inappropriate or
insufficient epitope retrieval. HIER is strongly recommended for
clone cocktail AE1/AE3. Several vendors continuously give misleading
information about proteolytic pre-treatment in their datasheets.
IgM:
61% sufficient results, only 24% optimal. The
material provided from NordiQC needs an IgM protocol aimed at
demonstrating membranous IgM, not cytoplasmic, in order to diagnose
lymphomas. The identification of the mantle zone B-cells is a critical staining
quality indicator (CQSI) for IgM. Tailored recommendations
given to participants previously obtaining an insufficient mark seem to be
central for improvement: In run 23, 34 laboratories were given
recommendation and submitted a new staining in run 30. 15
laboratories followed the recommendations of which 13 (87%)
improved to a sufficient result, while 13 did not change their
protocol and only 2 (15%) improved.
MLH1
mismatch repair protein: 57% sufficient results,
only 35% optimal.
mAb clone ES05 was most successful, both as concentrate and in an RTU
system.
HIER in alkaline buffer and the use of a 3-step polymer based
detection system is recommended.
A significant difference in the overall performance for MLH1 was
also related to the IHC platform applied: Only 6 out of 25 (24 %)
protocols performed on the fully automated platform BenchMark XT or
Ultra, Ventana, were sufficient, and none were optimal. In
contrast, 10 out of 13 (77 %) protocols performed on a
similar fully automated platform Bond-max or Bond III were assessed
as sufficient, out of which 8 (62 %) were optimal.
VIM
(vimentin): 83% sufficient results, only 48% optimal.
Too low concentration of the primary antibody
and omission of HIER were the typical causes of insufficient results.
Several vendors give misleading information
in their datasheets, suggesting proteolytic
pre-treatment, which hampers the staining reaction.
Run B10 (Breast cancer module) was accomplished in parallel
with Run 30. 222 laboratories participated, a total of 455 slides
were assessed and the corresponding protocols
analyzed. The overall distribution of marks were: optimal 58%, good
19%, insufficient 23% (borderline or poor).
ER
(estrogen receptor alpha): 197 labs participated, only 67% of the
stains stains were sufficient, 50% optimal. The
insufficient stains were mainly due to use of mAb clone 1D5 (both as
concentrate and in RTU systems), too low concentration of the
primary Abs, insufficient epitope retrieval, and (in few cases) endogenous biotin
reaction.
As ER is a class II analyte in breast cancer (i.e., the staining
result has a direct consequence for the treatment) it is not acceptable that labs continue to use clone 1D5. The vendors (Dako
and others) are urged to prune this product from their portfolio.
Figure: Serial sections of a
lobular breast carcinoma stained for Estrogen receptor (ER)
in two labs, both using clone SP1. To the left a strong
nuclear staining of most nuclei is seen. To the right there
is no nuclear staining but a strong cytoplasmic reaction of
most cells. Find the explanation on
ER. |
 |
HER-2 IHC:
201 labs participated, 87% sufficient stains, 74% optimal.
PATHWAY® (rabbit mAb clone
4B5, Ventana) gave as in previous runs a very high score - 100%
sufficient results in this test. Likewise, Oracle™ mAb
clone CB11, TA9145 gave optimal results in 5/5 labs with
appropriate protocol settings. In line with previous tests, HercepTest™
(Dako)
gave 85% sufficient results with appropriate protocol settings. Interestingly, in house systems,
which constantly before run B9 have shown unacceptable low pass rates,
increased to 69% sufficient in run 9 and further to 78% in the
current run 10. Clone SP3 (several
companies) gave 100% sufficient results with appropriate protocol
settings, CB11 (several companies) 88%, and pAb A0485 (Dako) 80%.
HER-2 BRISH:
57 labs participated, 72% sufficient results. Six commercially
available systems were used. The two-colour HER-2
systems INFORM™ HER-2 Dual SISH, Ventana, and DuoCISH™, Dako, gave
sufficient results in 77% and 64%, respectively, while the number of stains based on other
systems was too low to make any conclusions. The major reason for
insufficient staining was inefficient
retrieval (HIER and proteolysis),
and excessive proteolysis.
The in-house interpretation of the HER2 IHC and BRISH staining
reactions still causes difficulties. When only looking at labs with
sufficient staining results, 22% of the labs misclassified at least
one core in IHC, and 20% of the labs misclassified at least one core
in BRISH.
Monthly visits to
www.nordiqc.org in the last
6 months 2010.

|
|
|
July 2010 |
|
|
Run
29 (General module) was
accomplished April to June 2010. 163 laboratories participated, a total of
642 slides were assessed and the
corresponding protocols analyzed. The overall distribution of marks
were: optimal 30 %, good 38 %, insufficient 32 % (borderline or poor).
A short summary of the tests is given below. Click on the epitope name to
see the complete assessment results for each marker.
CA125
(cancer antigen 125): 82 % sufficient results. The
insufficient stains were mostly weak
or false negative reactions due to too diluted antibody and
insufficient HIER. Clone M11 appeared to be most robust, but
unfortunately M11 is sold as a ascites format by
several companies.
CD4:
63 % sufficient results. The insufficient stains
were mainly due to too low concentration of the primary antibody, insufficient HIER,
and insufficient performance of the mAb clones 4B12 and 1F6 on the Ventana
BenchMark platform. In contrast, clone 4B12 worked very well on
other platforms, and The Dako RTU format of 4B12 gave optimal results
when the staining was carried out according to the recommendations.
For the Ventana platform, clone SP35 can be recommended, as their
RTU format gave optimal results when the staining was carried out
according to the recommendations
CD79a:
75 % sufficient results. The insufficient stains were due to too diluted Ab, insufficient HIER and poor
performance of mAb clone JCB117 in RTU format from Ventana and
Cell Marque. In contrast, clone JCB117 from Dako both as a
concentrate and in an RTU format performed very well. Clone SP18
appear very robust, whereas clone HM57 (Dako) should not be used.
CK19
(cytokeratin 19): 69 % sufficient results. There are several good
clones (concentrated and in RTU formats). Clone RCK108 gave
many insufficient results, partly because proteolytic pre-treatment
was used, but also with HIER, this clone was less succesful.
SYP
(synaptophysin): Only 55 % sufficient results, mainly because the
continuous use of poorly performing clone SY38 (concentrated and in
an RTU format), and polyclonal antibodies from several companies.
Run B9 (Breast cancer module) was accomplished in parallel
with Run 29. 211 laboratories participated, a total of 419 slides
were assessed and the corresponding protocols
analyzed. The overall distribution of marks were: optimal 58 %, good
21 %, insufficient 21 % (borderline or poor).
PR
(progesterone): 77% sufficient results. The
insufficient stains were mainly due to too low concentration
of the primary antibody, insufficient epitope retrieval and
endogenous biotin reaction. As in previous runs clones 1A6 and SP2
consistently gave fewer sufficient staining results than clones 16,
PGR 636 and 1E2.
HER2 IHC:
In this 10th test 82% of the 189 stains were marked optimal or good.
PATHWAY® (rabbit mAb clone
4B5, Ventana) gave as in previous runs a very high score - 98 %
sufficient results in this test. HercepTest™
(Dako)
gave in this test 88 % sufficient results when adjusted for labs not following
the company's protocol guidelines. Interestingly, in house systems,
which constantly in previous runs have shown unacceptable low pass rates,
increased to 70% sufficient in this run. Clone SP3 (several
companies) and polyclonal A0485 (Dako) showed a rather robust
performance when adjusted for inappropriate protocol settings. When
clone CB11 was used with the Oracle system (Leica), all of four were
sufficient, while the performance with in house protocols was
unsatisfactory.
HER2 BRISH:
53 labs participated, 72% sufficient results. Six commercially
available systems were used. The two-colour HER-2
systems INFORM™ HER-2 Dual SISH, Ventana, and DuoCISH™, Dako, were
successful in most cases, while the number of stains based on other
systems was too low to make any conclusions. The major reason for
insufficient staining is inefficient retrieval (HIER or
proteolysis), but excessive retrieval also appears.
7th July 2010
Mogens Vyberg
Scheme director
Figure: Normal esophagus and thyroid
carcinoma stained for
CK19.
A: With clone
A53-B/A2.26 a strong staining of esophagus basal cells and
heterogeneous staining of suprabasal cells is seen.
B: With
clone RCK108 using the vendor's protocol recommendation, no staining is
obtained.
C-D: Papillary thyroid carcinoma stained with the same
protocols as in A and B, respectively. The staining
result in D is insufficient. |
 |
|
|
|
April 2010 |
|
|
Run
28 (General module) was
accomplished January to April 2010. 162 laboratories participated, a total of 865 slides were assessed and the
corresponding protocols analyzed. The overall distribution of marks
were: optimal 36 %, good 34 %, insufficient 30 % (borderline or poor).
A short summary of the tests is given below. Click on the epitope name to
see the complete assessment results for each marker.
Bcl-2: 82 % sufficient results.
Marked improvement has been achieved, mainly because of increasing
use of clone M11.
Bcl-6:
Only 48 % sufficient results. The insufficient stains were mainly characterized by too weak or false negative reactions
due to insensitive protocols, and in some cases apparently improper
blocking of endogenous peroxidase, which hampers the reactivity of
the
mAb clone PG-B6p.
BSAP (Pax-5):
67 % sufficient results. The insufficient stains were mainly too weak or false negative
reactions due to too diluted Ab, insufficient HIER and poor
performance of mAb clone 24 in RTU format (Ventana/Cell Marque).
CD99: Only 34
% sufficient results in this rather challenging test, where
particularly the two cases of Ewing/pPNET could only be stained
properly with a very sensitive protocol. Particularly the mAb clone
H036-1.1 gave a poor performance.
EMA
(Epithelial membrane antigen): 94 % sufficient results, which is a
marked improvement compared to the previous EMA test in 2004. The
explanations are obvious: higher concentration of the Ab, more use
of HIER and more sensitive detection systems.
WT1 (Wilms'
tumour 1): 83 % sufficient results, which is a marked improvement
compared to the previous WT1 test in 2005. A major reason for this
is better Abs available.
Figure:
Hodgkin lymphoma NS stained for
BSAP (Pax-5) in two laboratories. A. Optimal
staining: the B-lymphocyte nuclei are strongly
labelled while the Hodgkin/Reed-Sternberg cell
nuclei are only moderately labelled.
B. Insufficient
staining: the B-lymphocyte nuclei are moderately
labelled while the Hodgkin/Reed-Sternberg cell
nuclei are all unlabelled (red arrows). Note, that the
two photos are both taken with a magnification x200! |
 |
7th April 2010
Mogens Vyberg
Scheme director
|
|
|
December 2009 |
|
A short
summary of the tests in run 27, run B8 and pilot run
C2 is given below. Click on the epitope name to
see the complete assessment for each marker.
The presentations now
include tables with scoring details. The right column in the tables
indicate the proportions of sufficient results obtained with optimal
protocol settings: To calculate the latter we first
identified protocol settings (range of primary Ab dilution, type of
epitope retrieval etc.) that were needed to obtain an optimal result
(if available), and
hereafter found the proportion of sufficient results based on such
protocols. The idea is better to illustrate the 'robustness' of
primary Abs by adjusting for other protocol parameters. |
|
Run
27 (General module) was
accomplished September to December 2009. 142 laboratories participated
and a total of 614 slides were assessed and the
corresponding protocols analyzed. The overall distribution of marks
were: optimal 37 %, good 31 %, insufficient 31 % (borderline or poor).
ASMA
(alpha smooth muscle actin): 64 % sufficient results. The
insufficient stains were mostly weak
or false negative reactions due to incomplete heat induced epitope retrieval
(HIER),
too diluted antibody, and poor ready-to-use (RTU) systems. The mAb
clone 1A4 in a RTU system calibrated by Dako (IS611/IR611)
showed excellent performance. On the other hand,
staining with the same clone 1A4 (both as a concentrate and a RTU format) on
the BenchMark XT, Ventana, based on HIER in CC1 buffer caused
a widespread nuclear cross reaction. It is highly recommended to use liver perisinusoidal cells for protocol calibration.
CD10:
74 % sufficient results. The insufficient stains were mainly charaterized by too weak or false negative reactions due to
insufficient HIER or too a diluted primary antibody. It
is highly recommended to use germinal centre B-cells for protocol
calibration.
CDX2:
Only 46 % sufficient results in this rather challenging
test. The insufficient stains were mainly too weak or false negative
reactions with the most used 'old' mAb clones CDX2-88 and AMT28. In
contrast, the
new mAb clone DAK-CDX2 showed superior performance, both as a
concentrate and in an RTU
system (IS080/IR080, DAKO). Also the rabbit
mAb clone EPR2764Y seems promising.
|
|
CEA (Carcinoembryonic
antigen): 75 % sufficient results. The insufficient stains were mostly due to
the mAb clones
PARLAM 4 and TF3H8-1 giving an unacceptable cross reaction with
other CEA-like proteins. In contrast the mAb clones COL-1 and II-7
performed well both as concentrates and in RTU
systems.
Prostein (P501S): 11 labs took the opportunity to use this alternative
to PSA.
73 % sufficient result. The insufficient stains were due to
inappropriate calibration of the Ab concentration.
PSA
(prostate specific antigen): 76 % sufficient results. The
insufficient stains were mostly due to inapopropriate calibration of the Ab
concentration. |
 |
| The General module assessor
group, from left: Elin Borgen, Heikki Helin, Mogens
Vyberg, Jan Klos and Søren Nielsen. |
|
|
Run B8 (Breast cancer module) was accomplished in parallel with run
27 (see above). 157 laboratories participated and a total of 443 slides
were assessed.
ER (Estrogen
receptor alpha): In this 8th test, 74 % of the 144 stains were
sufficient (marked optimal or good). The insufficient stains were mostly
too weak reactions due to
too diluted antibody or insufficient
HIER. However, impaired morphology due to excessive HIER was also seen. Taken into consideration the therapeutic consequences
of ER testing, it is not satisfying that about 1 out of 4 labs still
produce borderline or poor results.
HER-2: In
this 9th test 72% of the 136 stains were
marked optimal or good. PATHWAY® (rabbit mAb clone
4B5, Ventana) continuously give a very high rate of sufficient results: 95 %
optimal and 5 % good in this test. HercepTest™
(Dako)
gave 81 % sufficient results when adjusted for labs not following
the company's protocol guidelines. As for the poor results, Dako will offer
detailed analysis of staining procedures in each lab, on site where
feasible. Once again NordiQC must warn against using in house systems,
which have unacceptable low pass rates.
p63: 95
% sufficient results, which is one of the most successful tests. Still many
protocols could be optimized, particularly by increasing the
Ab concentration.
SMH
(smooth muscle heavy chain myosin): In
this first test, 79 % of 19 stains were sufficient.
Efficient HIER is mandatory: an alkaline buffer
is recommended. Follicular dendritic cells are low expressing cells
and should be used as the critical indicator in tonsils/lymph nodes
used for control.
Run C2 (CISH/SISH HER-2
pilot module) was accomplished in parallel with run
B8. 34 laboratories participated in this second pilot run.
CISH/SISH HER-2: 68 % of the
stains were sufficient. Both dual and single colour systems could be
used to obtain an optimal staining. NordiQC is grateful to Dako,
Ventana/Roche and Zymed/Invitrogen for
sponsoring this testmodule (runs C1 and C2).
CISH/SISH tests will in 2010 be
offered as a part of the Breast cancer module.
7th December 2009
Mogens Vyberg
Scheme director
Visitors to www.nordiqc.org January-November 2009
according to StatCounter:
 |
|
July 2009 |
|
|
Run
26 (General module) was
accomplished April to July 2009. 153 laboratories participated
and a total number of about 960 slides were assessed and the
corresponding protocols analyzed. The overall distribution of marks
were: optimal 32 %, good 42 %, borderline 16 %, and poor 9 %. Thus,
the proportion of sufficient results was about the level of several
previous runs.
A short
summary of the results is given below. Click on the epitope name to
see the complete assessments for each marker. The presentations now
include tables with more details of the scoring. The last column of
the tables indicate the proportions of sufficient results obtained
with optimal protocol settings.
To calculate the latter we have first
identified protocol settings (range of primary Ab dilution, type of
epitope retrieval etc.) that could give optimal results, and
hereafter found the proportion of sufficient results based on such
protocols. The idea is better to illustrate the 'robustness' of
primary Abs by adjusting for other parameters.
Among protocols giving optimal results we have selected a number to
represent various clones, systems, and stainers to show the spectrum
of possibilities. Click on Current protocols.
AMACR/PIN:
This is the second test for
α-methylacyl-CoA racemase (single or in a PIN cocktail).
89% of the 71 stains were sufficient, indicating robust Abs.
Insufficient stains were mostly too weak. As a positive control and
critical indicator, kidney is now recommended.
CD31: In this
second test only 52 % of the 116 stains were marked as optimal or
good. However, most of the labs participated for the first time. The most important
causes for an insufficient result was use of mAb clone 1A10 (14 out
of 14 insufficient!), a too low concentration of the
mAb clone JC70A, and insufficient HIER. As a positive control and critical
indicator, liver is strongly recommended: The endothelial cells in
the sinusoids must stain as strong as possible without staining of
the liver cells.
CD68: In
this second test 70 % of the 128 stains were marked as optimal or
good. A major reason for insufficient stains is the use of
proteolytic pre-treatment.
Unfortunately, some vendors' data sheets give misleading information
concerning the epitope retrieval: NeoMarkers / Thermo Scientific recommends
proteolysis as pre-treatment for clone KP1, while Dako
recommends HIER for clone KP1 when sold as a concentrate and as
Ready-To-Use prod. no. IR609, but recommends proteolysis for the
Ready-To-Use prod. no. N1577.
CD117: In
this fourth test, 81 % of the 128 stains were marked as optimal or
good. While pAb A4502 (Dako) has until recently been the only Ab on
the market giving a high proportion of sufficient results, the new
rabbit monoclonal Ab (rmAb) YR145 seems promising, and may even be
devoid of the lot-to-lot variations seen with A4502. On the other
hand mAb 9.7 in an RTU format (Ventana) gave insufficient results in
7 of 8 cases.
p16: In
this first test, 70 % of 96 stains were marked as optimal or good.
However, when looking at 70 stains based on optimal protocol
settings, virtually all were sufficient, indicating very robust Abs.
However, among 8 clones used by the participants, only clone E6H4 (mtm Laboratories
AG) is a CE IVD product.
Run B7 (Breast module) was accomplished in parallel with run
26. 124 laboratories participated and a total of about 360 slides
were assessed.
ER (Estrogen
receptor alpha): In this 7th test, 81 % of 124 stains were marked as
optimal or good. As found in most runs,
mAb clone 6F11 and rmAb SP1 give a higher rate of sufficient stains
than mAb 1D5. Taken into consideration the therapeutic consequences
of ER testing, it is not satisfying that about 1 out of 5 labs still
produce insufficient results.
HER-2: In
this 8th test 73% of the 114 stains were
marked optimal or good. PATHWAY® (Ventana, rmAb clone
4B5) continuously give a very high rate of optimal results. One
reason for HercepTest™
giving a slightly lower pass rate is the fact
that several labs change the protocols against the FDA approved
direction. Once again we must warn against using in house systems
which have unacceptable low pass rates.
Ki67: In
this second test, 77 % of 124 stains were marked as optimal or good.
Insufficient results were mostly due to insufficient epitope
retrieval.
Figure:
Ki67 staining in two labs.: A. Optimal
staining of a lymph node showing strong reaction in
germinal centre cells. B. Insufficient
staining due to a too diluted antibody (same
follicle as in A).
C. Optimal Ki67 staining of a breast carcinoma
(same protocol as A). D. Insufficient
staining of the same breast carcinoma giving a much
lower scoring (same area as in C, same protocol as
B).
Ki67 labelling index has prognostic and predictive
value in breast cancer. Hence, staining results must
be standardized. |
 |
Run C1 (CISH/SISH HER-2 pilot module) was accomplished in parallel with run
26 and B6.
CISH/SISH HER-2: 17 stains were submitted out of which 14 were
marked optimal or good. All three systems (Ventana, Dako and Zymed)
could give optimal results. It was not possible in this pilot run to
identify specific causes for insufficient performance, as we had
difficulties in obtaining all specific protocol data. These will be
obtained when run C2 opens.
7 July 2009
Mogens Vyberg
Scheme directorVisitors to www.nordiqc.org January to June 2009 according to StatCounter:

|
|
April 2009 |
|
|
Run
25 (General module) was
accomplished January to April 2009. 134 laboratories participated
and a total number of about 800 slides were assessed and the
corresponding protocols analyzed. The overall distribution of marks
were: optimal 38 %, good 36 %, borderline 18 %, and poor 8 %. Thus,
the proportion of sufficient results was higher than in several
previous runs.
A short
summary of the results is given below. Click on the epitope name to
see the complete assessments for each marker. The presentations now
include tables with more details of the scoring. The last column of
the tables indicate the proportions of sufficient results obtained
with optimal protocol settings. To calculate these we have first
identified protocol settings (range of primary Ab dilution, type of
epitope retrieval etc.) that could give optimal results, and
hereafter found the proportion of sufficient results based on such
protocols. The idea is better to illustrate the 'robustness' of
primary Abs by adjusting for other parameters.
CD15:
This is the fourth CD15 test. The proportion of sufficient results
have now increased to 76 % due to improvements in the protocols
based on tailored recommendations, particularly increase of Ab
concentration and better HIER. 44 laboratories
followed the recommendations of which 33 (75 %) improved to a
sufficient mark, while 33 continued using their protocol unchanged,
of which only 5 (15 %) improved their mark to sufficient.
CD30: In this
second test 78 % obtained a sufficient mark. The most important
reasons for an insufficient result was too low concentration of the
Ab and insufficient HIER.
CK7 (Cytokeratin
7): As previously the proportion of sufficient marks is high
sustaining the robustness of this test. Too low concentration of the
Ab is a prevailing cause of too weak stains.
CK20 (Cytokeratin
20):
Only 64 % were sufficient. The major reason for this low proportion
was the use of proteolytic pre-treatment - which gave a sufficient
result in only 19 % of the cases. The laboratories are urged to use
HIER.
CK-LMW
(Cytokeratin low molecular weight): Only 66 % were sufficient. The
major reason for this low proportion was the use of mAbs CAM5.2 and
35BH11 which - like in two previous tests - give a high proportion
of insufficient stains. The laboratories are urged to change clone.
GCDFP15
(Gross cystic disease fluid protein-15): In this first test
only 61 % achieved a sufficient mark, the insufficient results
mainly due to too low concentration of the Ab and
insufficient HIER. A proper calibration should be based on skin with
eccrine sweat glands as control.
Mammaglobin:
In this first test 83 % achieved a sufficient mark. The
insufficient results mainly due to too low
or too high concentration of the Ab. The laboratories should focus
on a proper calibration based on skin with
eccrine sweat glands as control.
|
Figure
from the frontpage:
Mammaglobin
staining (run 25): When normal sweat glands stain
strongly (A), an optimal staining of breast ductal
carcinoma may be obtained (B). Weak staining of
sweat glands (C) indicate false negative staining of
the carcinoma (D). |
 |
7 April 2009
Mogens Vyberg
Scheme director
|
|
December 2008 |
|
|
Run
24 (General module) was
accomplished September to December 2008. 133 laboratories
participated and a total number of more than 600 slides were
assessed. The overall distribution of marks were: optimal 25 %, good
31 %, borderline 28 %, and poor 14 %. Thus, the proportion of
sufficient results was the same as in run 23 but lower than in runs
22 and 21, probably
mostly due to more challenging markers
and tissues.
A short
summary of the results is given below. Click on the epitope name to
see the complete assessments for each marker.
CD5:
This is the third CD5 test and 44 % of the stains were optimal, which is not satisfying.
Labs still using the problematic clone CD5/54/F6 (Dako) should discard
this Ab and select one of the other clones shown to give optimal
results, such as 4C7 and SP19. Labs obtaining suboptimal results
with one of the latter clones must recalibrate their system,
typically increase the Ab concentration and/or improve the epitope
retrieval.
CD23: This is
the third CD23 test but even
worse than CD5, only 28 % achieved optimal marks. Labs still using
the problematic clone MHM6 (Dako) and the clone 1B12 in RTU format (several
producers) should discard this Ab or format and select a
clone shown to give optimal results, such as SP23. Labs
obtaining suboptimal results with SP23 must recalibrate their
system, typically increase the Ab concentration and/or improve the epitope retrieval. Labs using clone 1B12 in
the concentrated format with suboptimal results are urged to improve the epitope retrieval
and/or apply a three step polymer conjugate visualization system.
CK-PAN
(Cytokeratin, pan-): This is the fourth CK-PAN test but still, only 37 % of the stains were optimal. The major
problem in detecting this marker is still inappropriate
or insufficient epitope retrieval. Lab using the cocktail AE1/AE3 + PCK26 (Ventana)
are - in accordance with the producer - recommended to use
sequential retrieval.
MLA (Melan A):
This is the fourth MLA test. Only 21 % of the stains were optimal.
Labs obtaining suboptimal stains
with the concentrated format of mAb clone A103 must recalibrate their system,
typically increase the Ab concentration and/or improve the epitope
retrieval. Labs still using A103 in RTU format from Ventana
should change to a concentrated format
OCT3/4:
Only 18 labs participated, the large majority of stains were
optimal or good. This test seems to be robust as a valid replacement for PLAP
(see below).
PLAP
(Placental alkaline phosphatase): Only 3% of the stains were optimal
while almost half were considered insufficient. Major reasons for
suboptimal performance was the Mouse-Ascites-Golgi reaction with
clone PL8-F6, and the smooth muscle cross reaction with clone 8A9.
The labs should consider changing PLAP with another test like
OCT3/4.
|
Figure from the front page: Serial sections of a mantle cell lymphoma stained
for CD5 in two labs. Above: A moderate staining in
100 % of neoplastic cells is seen. A few T-cells are
strongly stained. Below: Staining of a single T-cell
is seen, while the neoplastic cells are unstained.
See the explanation on
CD5. |
 |
Run B6 (Breast module) was accomplished in parallel with run
24. 121 laboratories participated and a total of more than 300 slides
were assessed.
CK-HMW
(Cytokeratin, high molecular weight): Only 11 % of the stains were
optimal and 13 % good. This was the first CK-HMW test on breast
tissue. The major reason for the low score is the well known problem
with clone 34BE12, which should react only with CK-HMWs (CK5, CK14,
CK1, CK10), yet cross reacts with an unknown CK-LMW type (possibly
CK19). The aim of this NordiQC test was to focus on the
identification of CK-HMWs in basal/myoepithelial cells in breast tissue. It should have been emphasized that the aim was not to
analyse the usefulness of clone 34BE12 in the differentiation
between ductal and lobular carcinoma.
HER-2: 71% of the stains were
optimal. This is a marked improvement compared to run B5,
particularly because HercepTest performed much better - in spite of
an unchanged set up including the same amplified 2+ carcinoma. We have no firm
explanation for this but consider that the focus on the problem in
the participating labs as well as the producer's lab has promoted
this improvement.
PR
(Progesterone receptor): Through four runs the results have
continuously improved. With 50 % optimal and 32 % good stains this
test seems rather robust, particularly with clones PgR 636, 16 and
1E3.
7th December 2008
Mogens Vyberg
Scheme director |
|
July 2008 |
|
|
Run
23 (General module) was
accomplished April to June 2008. 131 laboratories participated
and a total number of more than 600 slides was assessed. The overall
distribution of marks were: optimal 31%, good 28%, borderline 21%,
and poor 20%. This is an average distribution but less satisfactory
than in runs 21 and 22, probably due to more challenging markers.
A short
summary of the results is given below. Click on the epitope name to
see the complete assessments for each marker.
Calretinin
(CR): 80 % of the
stains were sufficient, which is a marked improvement. As usual, the
insufficient stains were often based on insufficient HIER and a too
dilute antibody - parameters that should be easy to adjust in the
laboratory. Three Abs (mAb clones DAKCalret1 and 5A5 and pAb 18-0211
from Zymed) work equally well, while two pAbs (760-2700 from Ventana
and 7699/4 from Swant) are less succesful. Almost all labs adjusting
their protocols according to the NordiQC recommendations improved.
Epithelial cell-cell adhesion molecule
(Ep-CAM): 63 % of the
stains were sufficient, which is not satisfactory. A critical point
is the need for HIER in Target retrieval solution pH 6.1 (Dako). 80
% of the labs adjusting their protocols according to the NordiQC
recommendations improved.
Immunoglobulin Kappa (IgK):
Only 42 % of the stains were sufficient, virtually the same as in
2006. Only pAb A0191/A0192 (Dako) give optimal stains and only in a
minor proportion, emphasizing the need for careful protocol
calibration, based on the staining of the IgK+ mantle cell
population, not the plasma cells.
Immunoglobulin M (IgM):
Only 50 % of the stains were sufficient, an improvement from 2006
but still far from satisfactory. Some laboratories only use anti-IgM for plasma
cells. However, the material provided from NordiQC needs an IgM
protocol aimed at demonstrating membranous IgM, not cytoplasmic, in
order to diagnose lymphomas.
Thyroid transcription factor-1 (TTF-1):
The proportion of sufficient stains has increased from 24 % in 2007
to 43 % in the current run, mainly because many labs have changed
their clone from 8G7G3/1 to SPT24.
Run B5 (Breast module) was accomplished in parallel with run
23. 116 laboratories participated and a total of about 200 slides
were assessed.
E-cadherin (ECAD):
85 % of the stains in this first test were sufficient indicating
that the detection of this epitope is not difficult. The liver cells
are critical stain quality indicators, they must show
at least a moderate membranous reaction with no or only minimal
cytoplasmic staining.
Estrogen receptor alpha (ER):
79 % of the stains were sufficient, slightly less than in 2007 and
not satisfactory because of the ER being a treatment marker.
Insufficient HIER and too dilute Ab is still a problem. However,
even with correct protocol settings there are marked differences
between the clones used: In cumulated data from six runs comprising
343 slides, clones 1D5, 6F11 and SP1 give optimal stains in 36 %, 47
% and 68 %, respectively.
HER-2: Only
56% of the stains were sufficient. In this assessment PATHWAY was
far the most robust method. For all FDA approved HER-systems
the protocol has to be followed strictly and the protocol settings
should be accurately validated. The unsatisfactory performance of
HercepTest in this run should be interpreted with care, as the
staining problems are based on only one tissue sample. New tests on
more 2+ carcinomas must be carried out. A discordance between cell
lines and tissues of 21% emphasizes that cell lines cannot be used
for quality assessment of HER-2 staining without tissue samples
included.
Figure from the frontpage: Two amplified breast carcinomas stained
for
HER-2 in two labs using FDA approved systems.
Both obtained a 3+ staining in the left
tumour. In the right tumour lab A gets a 2+
staining, while lab B gets a 1+ staining. With the
latter, FISH is not carried out and the patient
would not be offered the right treatment. |
 |
7 July 2008
Mogens Vyberg
Scheme manager |
|
April 2008 |
|
|
Run
22 (General module) was
accomplished January to April 2008. 123 laboratories participated
and a total number of 600 slides was assessed. The overall
distribution of marks were: optimal 34%, good 34%, borderline 22%,
and poor 10%. This is an average distribution but less satisfactory
than in run 21, probably due to more challenging markers.
A short
summary of the results is given below. Click on the epitope name to
see the complete assessments for each marker.
CD3: The
proportion of sufficient results has now increased to 84 %, but many
labs can improve their results by a more efficeint HIER and higher
concentration of the primary Ab. Using a tonsil as control, the
dispersed T-cells in the germinal centre must show a strong and
distinct staining.
CD15: The
proportion of sufficient stains increased slightly to 66 %, which is
not satisfactory but in part may be ascribed to many new
participants. Among labs changing their protocol according to our
recommendations, 73 % improved (while those ignoring the
recommendation improved in 15 %). As in previous runs, clone MMA
performs better than clone C3D-1. Even though the latter may give
optimal results, it seems less robust than MM1. The new clone Carb-3
looks promising but is still used by only few labs.
CDX2:
In this first CDX2 assessment the clone CDX2-88 appears to be
more sensitive and robust than clone AMT28. However, clone CDX2-88 is an ascites format giving
the so-called Mouse ascites Golgi reaction with blood type A tissue.
The producer is encouraged change the production method to a
supernatant format to reduce this potential source of error. Pancreas
should be used for control, not colon or appendix!
CGA: While mAb
clones LK2H10 and LK2H10+PHE5 and pAb A0430 (Dako) all give
sufficient stains in more than 70 % of the labs, clone DAK-A3 have
given no sufficient results among 27 stains! The labs using DAK-A3
are encouraged to change clone, and the producer/vendor (Dako)
encouraged to withdraw the product from the market.
MSH2: Even thoug
there are several good Abs, only 20 % of the labs got an optimal
result. This is mainly due to too low concentration of the Ab and
insufficient HIER. LAbs can improve by calibrating their protocols
on a tonsil: A strong nuclear staining should be
seen not only in the proliferating germinal centre cells but also in
the dormant lymphocytes of the mantle zone.
SYP: While mAb
clones 27G12 and Snp88 give sufficient results in almost all stains,
clone SY38 have in the two latest runs only given a sufficient
result in 14 % of the stains. The labs using SY38 are encouraged to
change clone, and the producers/vendors (Dako and others) encouraged
to withdraw the product from the market. In stains based on clone
Snp88 an unwanted cytoplasmic reaction is frequently seen in tissues
from patients with blood group A. This is due to Snp88 being an
ascites format. The producer is encouraged change
the production method to a supernatant format to reduce this
potential source of error.
Figure from the
frontpage:
Pancreas stained for
Synaptophysin using mAb clone
Snp88. The difference between the two stains is due to the Ab being an
ascites format in combination with different patient blood groups! |
 |
7 April 2008
Mogens Vyberg
Scheme manager |
|
December 2007 |
|
|
Run 21 (General module) was
accomplished September to November 2007. 124 laboratories participated
and a total number of 650 slides was assessed. The overall
distribution of marks were: optimal 46%, good 31%, borderline 15%,
and poor 8%. Thus the proportion of optimal stains is still going in
the right direction. About 2% were inappropriate, particularly because
several laboratories selected a wrong antibody to detect alpha
smooth muscle actin.
A short
summary of the results is given below. Click on the epitope name to
see the complete assessments for each marker.
alpha-smooth
muscle actin (ASMA): mAb clone 1A4 works well, provided
efficient heat induced epitope retrieval (HIER) and a proper
calibration of the dilution, based on appropriate controls such as
normal liver tissue: The perisinusoidal cells must stain as
strongly as possible without staining of the liver cells. Using
clone 1A4 in a ready-to-use (RTU) format is currently NOT advisable.
CD20: The
proportion of sufficient stains is satisfactory: 87%. However, many
laboratories could improve by simply increasing the concentration of
the primary Ab. HIER is mandatory: citrate buffer pH 6 tended to
give a more crisp membrane reaction than alkaline buffers.
Tonsil is an appropriate control: The
mantle zone B-cells and the germinal centre B-cells must show a
strong reaction. No other cells should stain.
CD79a:
Clones JCB117 and SP18 may give very good results provided efficient
HIER and proper calibration of the primary Ab. On the other hand,
laboratories should not stock clone HM57 for human tissue!
Appendix and tonsil are appropriate controls: The germinal centre
B-cells must show a moderate to strong staining reaction.
CD117:
pAb A4502 (Dako) is still the only Ab giving optimal results in a
proportion of stains but the number of stains based on other Abs is
too low for a conclusion. With A4502, HIER gives better results than
no retrieval. The current assessment has revealed a hitherto
unrecognized lot-to-lot variation (see assessment for details). Appendix is an appropriate control: The Cajal cells
in muscularis propria must show a distinct reaction, while the smooth muscle cells should be negative.
CD138:
Optimal results can be obtained with several clones (MI-15, B-B4,
BC/B-B4, B-A38) provided HIER and a proper calibration of the
primary Ab. Laboratories using clone 5F7 do not get sufficient
results and are encouraged to change clone.
Tonsil is an appropriate control: activated germinal centre B-cells,
plasma cells and squamous epithelial cells must show a distinct
membranous reaction.
|
Figure: Using mAb clone 5F7 for
CD138 a laboratory got poor marks due to weak/false negative reactions (A).
According to NordiQC advise clone 5F7 was changed. In the reassessment optimal marks were obtained with clone
Mi15 (B).
1. Germinal centre, 2. Squamous epithelium, 3.
Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, activated type, 4. Plasmacytoma.
|
 |
Desmin (DES):
In spite of 78% sufficient results more than half of the labs can
improve their staining, primarily by increasing the concentration of
the primary Ab. HIER is mandatory. Appendix is an appropriate
control: not only the muscular layers but also the arteriolar walls
must show the strongest possible staining reaction without staining
of the enterocytes.
Run
B4 (Breast module) was
accomplished in parallel with run 21.
HER-2: As
in previous runs, the FDA approved systems Herceptest and Pathway
performed much better than in-house (home made) systems. However,
only 56% of the sufficient stains could be used directly to decide
amplification status, and only 43% of the laboratories both had a
sufficient staining and an interpretation in concordance with the
NordiQC assessors.
| Progesterone
receptor (PR): Nine different Abs were used, five of them gave
optimal results in a fair proportion of cases with clones 1E2,
PgR636 and 16 being the most robust. In almost half of the
protocols, improvement can be obtained by increasing the Ab
concentration and prolong heating time. Uterine cervix is an
appropriate control: not only the stromal cells but also the basal squamous cells and the columnar epithelial cells must show a strong
nuclear reaction. |
 |
30 November 2007
Mogens Vyberg
Scheme manager |
Fig.
Uterine cervix stained for progesterone receptor: Nuclear reaction must be obtained in epithelial cells
(left). In insufficient protocols, a strong staining of stromal
cells can still be obtained, while the epithelial cells are false
negative (right). |
|
|
July 2007 |
|
|
Run
20 (General module) was
accomplished April to June 2007. About 110 laboratories participated
and a total number of more than 600 slides was assessed. The overall
distribution of marks were: optimal 31%, good 39%, borderline 24%,
and poor 7%. About 4% were inappropriate, particularly because
several laboratories selected a wrong antibody to detect low
molecular weight cytokeratin (CK-LMW).
A short
summary of the results is given below. Click on the epitope name to
see the complete assessments for each marker.
CK-LMW:
The proportion of sufficient
results has been increased from 46% in run 16 to 67% in the current
run. NordiQC recommendations for protocol optimization resulted in a
marked improvement of the performance. However, detection of CK-LMW
still causes difficulties for many laboratories, mainly when
the old clones 35BH11 and cam5.2 are used. Laboratories stocking
these should consider a change to clone DC10 or C51. For the latter
HIER should be applied in an alkaline buffer. Include liver tissue
as control: virtually all liver cells must be stained.
CK-Pan: The
proportion of sufficient results increased slightly (from 58% to
62%). A major reason for suboptimal stains is the demasking: of 24
laboratories using proteolytic pretreatment for AE1/AE3, only two
obtained a good staining and none were optimal. In spite of producer
recommendations, HIER is mandatory!
MLA: There are
still too many borderline and poor stains, because the protocols are
too insensitive. Clone A103
as a Ready-To-Use reagent is particularly insensitive (none of seven
stains were sufficient) and cannot be recommended. When specific
recommendations given to the participating laboratories are
followed, this has a marked impact on the performance.
MSA: 97% of
the laboratories obtained a sufficient stain, indicating that clone
HMB-45 is very robust.
p53: Only 19%
obtained optimal marks and 49% good, mainly due to improper
calibration of the antibody dilution. This may be a difficult task, as
no normal tissue can be used for control.
S-100:
Insufficient results seem in many laboratories to be due to lack
of awareness of optimal positive and negative control material
giving difficulties in finding the right pre-treatment and dilution
of the primary Ab. The Langerhans cells in the skin appear to be
good controls.
Run
B3 (Breast module) was
accomplished in parallel with run 20.
ER: The
proportion of sufficient stains is 84%, almost unchanged from two
previous runs. The lobular breast carcinoma included in the multitissue block still is a hindrance for the optimal result in
many laboratories. A more efficient demasking, careful Ab
calibration and choice of a biotin free visualization system are the
clues.
HER-2: It
was encouraging that all laboratories using FDA approved systems
this time adhered to the protocols. On the other hand there are still too many
laboratories using poorly calibrated in-house systems. Furthermore,
the capability to score the stains correctly lacks very much behind
and more training is strongly advised.
1 July 2007
Mogens Vyberg
Scheme manager
|
|
April 2007 |
|
|
Run
19 (General module) was accomplished
January to
April 2007. About 100 laboratories participated with a total of
530 stained slides (including 35 reassessments). Podoplanin/D2-40 was stocked by only 29
labs.
A short
summary of the results is given below. Click on the epitopes to
see the complete assessments for each marker.
Overall, 27% of the stains in run 19 were assessed as optimal, 30% good, 32%
borderline, and 11% poor. As in all previous runs, major reasons for
insufficient results were:
Particularly staining for
TTF1 produced a
large proportion of borderline and poor results: 72 out of 74 using
clone 8G7G3/1 were insufficient, mainly due to false
negative reaction in the carcinoid tumour, which stained with clone
SPT24. With the latter clone 60% of the
stains were optimal and 16% good. However, using SPT24 the
laboratories should be aware that TTF1 is not as specific for lung
and thyroid adenocarcinomas as previously believed. It is important
for diagnostic purposes that TTF1 is included in a panel.
The overall laboratory performance for
CD23 decreased,
in part because of the application of ready-to-use antibodies that
are not appropriately calibrated by the producers. The Ab concentration in the RTU format must be
related to the total sensitivity of the protocol employed, and this
sensitivity has to be defined in a clinical setting and validated by
the producer as well as the laboratories.
As regards CR,
CyD1 and
Ki67 the
combination of efficient HIER, proper Ab
selection and calibration of the Ab dilution is emphasized.
Marked improvements were seen in laboratories adjusting their
protocols (fully or partly) according to NordiQC recommendations in a previous run,
typically about 70% of the laboratories have obtained sufficient
marks.
However, too many laboratories continue to use insufficient
protocols in spite of specific advice for optimization!
From 2007 NordiQC will contact producers of antibodies that have
been less successful in a least two assessments and have been used
by at least four participants.
For run 19, the following less successful antibodies are
listed:
CD23, clone MHM6 and 1B12 (ready-to-use format)
CR, pAb 760-2700
CyD1, clones DCS6 and P2D11F11
TTF1, clone 8G7G3/1
The producers will be requested to inform the costumers about problems with their antibodies as revealed in the NordiQC assessments
and either to publish protocols for an improved performance or
consider withdrawal of the antibodies from the market.
NordiQC welcome a new assessor, biotechnologist Ole Nielsen, Odense
University Hospital. Ole Nielsen has worked with immunohistochemical
protocol optimization for many years and given multiple courses in
this field.
01 April 2007
Mogens Vyberg
Scheme manager
|
|
December 2006 |
|
|
Run
18 (General module) was accomplished
August to
December 2006. About 100 laboratories participated with a total of
about 500 stained slides. A short
summary of the results is given below. Click on the epitope names to
see the complete assessments for each marker.
As in run 15,
staining of immunoglobulin epitopes caused most
troubles. For both IgK and
IgM, the
insufficient results were prevailing. The laboratories getting
suboptimal marks are encouraged to read the assessment description
and recommendations carefully. A sufficient staining can be
obtained, when simple steps are followed: heat
induced epitope retrieval, best Ab selection, and careful
calibration of the Ab dilution.
The laboratories' capability of detecting
chromogranin A (CGA)
improves: The proportion of sufficient
results have increased from 39 % in run 9 (2003) to 70 % in the
present run! During the two previous runs, specific recommendations have been given to
a total of 68 laboratories with insufficient staining results. In 46 of the
laboratories, the advice of changes in the protocols have been followed, subsequently giving
sufficient staining in 42 (91 %). 22 of the laboratories that apparently
ignored the advices, obtained sufficient marks in the subsequent run
in 5 cases (23%) .
Neurofilament protein (NFP) was included for the first
time. Remarkably, 52 out of 56 laboratories chose the mAb clone
2F11, even though this clone only detects phosphorylated filaments
that rarely are represented in neuroendocrine and low differentiated
neuronal tumours. The laboratories are encouraged to read the
assessment description and recommendations as regards selection of
the right clones for staining tumours. In the current run, the
purpose of NFP was not explicit, even though the inclusion of
tumours in the slides was a hint. mAb clone 2F11 is a good antibody
for detecting well differentiated neurons but will be considered inappropriate for tumour diagnostics in future
assessments.
In order to detect
synaptophysin
(SYP) the laboratories applied
twelve different Abs. Only five of them gave optimal
results in this assessment. As for six others, they were used by few
participants and no firm conclusion can be drawn, until the Abs have
been compared in optimized protocols. In contrast, mAb clone
SY38, one of the oldest on the market, were used by eleven
laboratories, none of whom
obtained an optimal staining result. This is in accordance with
studies carried out in Aalborg showing clone SY38
to be less sensitive than three other Abs (clones 27G12 and Snp88 and pAb A0010).
The study will soon be published (Vyberg M, Ulhøi
BP, Teglbjærg PS: Neuronal features of Oligodendrogliomas.
Histopathology, in press).
Finally in the general
module, terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase (TdT) was
included for the first time. 93% obtained optimal or good marks
indicating that TdT staining is a robust method.
Run B2 (Breast module) had 81 participants. Staining for
progesterone
gave sufficient results in 75%, the insufficient stains were
typically due to insufficient heat induced epitope retrieval and too
dilute Ab.
HER-2
immunohistochemistry assessment disclosed unexpected reaction
patterns in some cell cultures and one of the carcinomas. Even
though the results should be interpreted with care, there is a clear
tendency to improvement. However, the home made systems still lacks
behind HercepTest.
HER-2
FISH/CISH revealed a high concordance as regards amplification
versus non-amplification. However, analyses of slides and protocols
were cumbersome and did not give sufficient information for advising
the laboratories.
Reassessments
54 slides were submitted for assessment of new stains where the
primary stains had been assessed as insufficient in run 17. Grouped
together, 15 of the new slides were marked as optimal (28%), 25 as
good(46%), 8 as borderline (15 %), and 6 as poor (11 %).
Thus, 74 % improved their marks to either good or optimal. However the
improvement rates were depending on the epitopes detected. The
highest improvement rate (89%) showed calretinin and CD5, whereas none of three improved their
Melan A stain.
1 and 7 December 2006
Mogens
Vyberg
Scheme manager
|
Frontpage figure in December
(click on photo for
magnification): In run 17, 14 labs. stained for CD5 using clone CD5/54/F6,
none obtained an optimal result. An insufficient result from
one lab.: a) The T-cells in the tonsil are moderately stained,
but the subpopulation
of B-cells in the mantle zone expected to be positive are
virtually unstained. b) The mantle
cell lymphoma shows a weak and indistinct reaction. The lab.
requested reassessment in run 18 after changing to clone 4C7
and obtained optimal marks: c) The B-cell
subpopulation in the tonsil is now distinctly stained,
though the reaction is weak compared to the strongly stained
T-cells. d) The mantle cell lymphoma
is moderately-strongly positive. |
 |
|
|
July 2006 |
|
|
Run
17 & B1 was accomplished
April to
June 2006. 100 laboratories participated with a total of 633
stained slides (including reassessments), the highest number of slides
since NordiQC was established. Click on
ALK,
bcl-6,
Calretinin,
CD5,
Cyclin D1,
Ep-CAM,
ER,
and HER-2 to see
the general results for each of these markers.
The
overall marks were as follows: optimal 35%, good 31%, borderline
17%, and poor 17%.
For
HER-2, Ep-CAM, Calretinin, Cyclin D1, almost half of the stains were
deemed insufficient (borderline or poor; 49%, 46%, 44% and 41%,
respectively). For CD5 and ER 34% and 25%, respectively, were
insufficient, while for bcl-6 and ALK, 13% and 7%,
respectively, were insufficient.
As in previous runs, it
is fairly apparent from multiple protocol analyses what is needed to
obtain optimal stains, particularly the selection of a good antibody
and a protocol with efficient epitope retrieval. At the same time, the causes of
insufficient results are revealed in almost all cases.
It is important that the
participants study the general results of the assessments carefully
to be able to benefit fully from the suggestions for improvement,
which are given with the individual results in case of insufficient
stains. Inspiration can also be found in the
recommended protocols.
For some of the markers
previously included in the assessments, the proportion of
insufficient stains unfortunately increased! There are several reasons for
this: 1) New participants for the first time staining for the
markers included, 2) The multitissue blocks now include tumours that
are more demanding or challenging, e.g. because of fewer epitopes or
higher content of endogenous biotin. In this context it is
satisfying to see that laboratories changing their protocols
according to NordiQC recommendations after previous runs improve
their staining results considerably. However, some participants
apparently ignore the recommendations given and
continue to use less successful antibodies and inappropriate
retrieval techniques. Most of them continue to get insufficient
results.
NordiQC has until now
only has given suggestions to the participants, e.g. as regards
choice of antibody and retrieval method. However, based on the rather
firm and reproducible results, NordiQC will now also contact
producers and vendors to have less successful (in fact poor performing) antibodies withdrawn
from the market and misleading protocol recommendations changed.
The most worrisome result
in this run was the low score for HER-2. Just like in the pilot run in 2005,
optimal results could only be obtained with a FDA approved kit (in
run B1 only Herceptest), following the guidelines
given by the system manufactures.
Laboratories using more
or less home-made HER-2 protocols should change their system
immediately.
|
|
April 2006 |
|
|
Run
16 was accomplished January to
April 2006. 102 laboratories participated with a total of 567
stained slides (including reassessments) - the highest number of laboratories and slides
since NordiQC was established. Click on
AMACR/P504S,
CD10,
CK-LMW,
CK-HMW,
Melan A and
p63 to see
the general results for each of the markers.
The
overall marks were as follows: optimal 39%, good 27%, borderline
17%, and poor 13%, while in 4% of the stains inappropriate antibodies
were used. The proportion of insufficient (borderline or poor)
stains was highest for Melan A (68%), mainly because of difficulties
in the demonstration of Melan A in the desmoplastic malignant melanoma
when using less sensitive protocols.
Obviously the calibration of protocols in many laboratories have
been carried based out on tissues with a relatively high expression of
epitopes. Protocols giving optimal results are
available at the website, the participants are
encouraged to study the photos and the
recommended protocols.
For
CK-LMW, there were also many insufficient results (54%). Here the
main reason appeared to be the use of less successful antibodies.
Most likely, these laboratories could improve their results simply by
using either clone DC10 or C51 with HIER. Out of 7
labs. that changed their CK-LMW protocols after Run 9 according to
the NordiQC advice, 5 improved their marks, while improvement
was not seen for any of 9 labs. that did not follow the advice.
|
|
December 2005 |
|
|
Run
15 was accomplished September to
November 2005. 92 laboratories participated with a total of 407
stained slides. Click on
CA125,
CD45,
IgK,
IgL,
pan-CK and
WT1 to see
the general results for each of the markers.
The
overall marks were as follows: optimal 24%, good 27%, borderline
22%, and poor 25%, while in 2% of the cases inappropriate antibodies
were used. The proportion of insufficient (borderline or poor)
stains was rather high, particularly due to unsatisfactory results
from immunoglobulin light chain staining. However, there were also
several protocols giving optimal results, the participants are
encouraged to study the
recommended protocols.
The most frequent causes of insufficient
stains were generally (as in previous runs, and often in
combination):
- Insufficient calibration of the primary
antibody concentration (appearing to a be cardinal step
particularly for the light chains)
- Missing, insufficient, inappropriate or
excessive epitope retrieval (e.g., laboratories staining
for pan-cytokeratin following the package inserts and
instructions provided by the producers obtained insufficient
results in part due to erroneous recommendations for epitope
retrieval).
- Less successful antibodies
In the
HER-2 pilot run 68
laboratories submitted stains. At the assessment 28 achieved optimal
marks (41
%), 22 good (32
%), 8
borderline (12
%) and 10
(15
%) poor marks. An optimal staining result in combination with a
correct interpretation was seen in only 17 out of 57 laboratories
(30%). The preliminary results indicate that the FDA approved
immunohistochemical HER-2 systems Herceptest and Pathway seems to be
more reliable than in-house methods, and that training in the
interpretation of HER-2 stains is needed for a large number of the
laboratories.
NordiQC has decided to establish a separate breast module from 2006,
opening 1 April with 2 runs each catering for four markers including
HER-2, ER, PgR, and another relevant breast marker to be defined for
each run. |
|
June 2005 |
|
|
Run
14 was accomplished April to June
2005. 91 laboratories participated with a total of 457 stained
slides.
Click
on
CD3,
CD4,
CD8,
CD15,
CD117 and
PLAP to see the general results for each of the markers.
The
overall marks were as follows: optimal 32%, good 43%, borderline
15%, and poor 10%. The proportion of insufficient (borderline or
poor) stains is approximately the same as in previous run, but
cannot be compared directly due to new markers and new laboratories.
Most
interesting is it to see the development for CD15 and CD117 staining
in laboratories that have stained for these markers the second time:
33 laboratories with an insufficient CD15
staining in run 10 submitted a new CD15 stain in run 14. 17 out of
the 33 laboratories followed the recommendations, and 12 of these
(71 %) improved their score from insufficient to either good or
optimal. 16 laboratories did not follow the recommendations and only
2 (12 %) improved.
19 laboratories with an insufficient CD117
staining in run 7 submitted a new CD117 stain in run 14. 16 out of
these followed the recommendations and 15 of these (94 %) improved
from insufficient to either good or optimal. 3 laboratories did not
follow the recommendations and only one improved.
The most frequent causes
of insufficient stains were generally (as in previous runs, and
often in combination):
- Too low (or - rarely - too high) concentration of the primary
antibody
- Missing or insufficient (or - rarely - excessive) epitope
retrieval
- Inappropriate choice of primary Ab.
With CD4, clone 1F6, an inappropriate blocking of
endogenous peroxidase was a likely cause of insufficient result.
However, this will be analyzed in a new run in 2006.
By appointment with UK-NEQAS, NordiQC plan to
take over quality assurance of HER2 staining from 2006.
A test run free of charge is included with Run
15 opening 01 September.
|
-
■ Anvendt
Immunhistokemi ("Applied Immunohistochemistry" - in
Danish only): Update and ordering: Click on
Epitopes
|
|
|
April 2005 |
|
|
Run 13
was accomplished January to
April 2005. Click on
Bcl-2,
CGA,
ER,
GFAP,
MLH1, and
MSH2 to see the general results for each of the markers.
92 laboratories participated with
a total of 368 stains. Marks for the total material
were as follows:
Optimal: 36%, good: 38%,
borderline: 19%,
and poor: 6%.
The largest proportion of
sufficient (i.e., optimal or good) stains was achieved with
bcl-2 (93%),
the smallest with MSH2 (43%).
The main causes for insufficient
staining were generally the same as in all previous
runs:
● too
diluted primary antibody (in few cases too
concentrated antibody)
●
insufficient, missing or inappropriate epitope
retrieval
●
inappropriate primary antibody.
The most
interesting - and inspiring - observation was the
impact of recommendations previously given for
improving the protocols for estrogen receptor alpha
(ER), which was included for the third time, and
chromogranin A (CGA), which was included for the
second time.
ER is
described on the front page. As regards CGA,
the proportion of insufficient staining was reduced
from to 61 % in run 9 to 36 % in run 13. 43
laboratories, which obtained an insufficient result
in run 9 submitted a new CGA-stain in run
13. 28 of the 43 laboratories followed the recommendations given, and 25
of these (89%) improved the score from insufficient to either good or optimal, while
3 were still insufficient. 15 laboratories did not follow the recommendations. 3
of these (20%) obtained a good but not optimal result in run 13,
whereas 12 still had an insufficient staining.
Please read
the assessments of Run 13 carefully and compare the
general descriptions with your individual assessment
score, as well as comments and recommendations
accompanying insufficient results.
In case of
good marks, comments are rarely given. However, you
may contact NordiQC for an explanation, if you wish
us to give suggestions for optimization.
The origin of uploaded protocols giving optimal staining results are
published, encouraging technicians and pathologists to communicate
directly when needed. If a participating laboratory wish to remain
anonymous, NordiQC should be informed by e-mail.
If you haven't got your individual
score per e-mail or are in doubt,
do not hesitate to send us an e-mail. |
|
December 2004 |
|
|
Run 12
was accomplished September to
December 2004. Click on
CD99, CEA, CK5, PAP, PSA, and
vimentin to see the general results for each of the markers.
79
laboratories participated with a total of 372
stainings. Marks for
the total material of stainings were as follows:
Optimal: 53%, good: 29%,
borderline: 13%,
and poor: 5%.
The largest proportion of
sufficient (i.e., optimal or good) stains was achieved with vimentin
(94%),
the smallest with CD99 (44%).
However, 15
CEA stains were
excluded
in the assessment
because of the use of antibodies that we considered inappropriate due to cross
reaction with CEA-like proteins. Consequently we
could not assess the true reactivity to CEA in these
cases.
The main causes for insufficient
staining were generally the same as in all previous runs
- often in combination: |
▪ Insufficient epitope retrieval (typically when citrate pH 6 is
used as buffer instead of Tris-EDTA/EGTA pH 9)
▪ Inappropriate epitope retrieval (proteolytic pre-treatment, often
excessive)
▪ Lack of epitope retrieval
▪ Too dilute antibodies
▪ Inappropriate antibodies. |
Via e-mail (about 1 December 2004) all participants are informed
about their individual scores. Particularly in case of insufficient
staining, explanation of the probable causes and suggestions for
improvement are given.
If you have not received your score, please contact us at nordiqc@nja.dk
Run 13 opens 1 January: The markers are bcl2, chromogranin A,
estrogen receptor, glial fibrillary acidic protein, and the mismatch
repair proteins MLH1 and MSH2. All participants will be notified. |
|
June 2004 |
|
In Run 11
accomplished April to June 2004,
comprised
CD14,
CD30,
CD31,
CD68,
Factor VIII and
human
chorionic gonadotropin.
Click on these to see the general results
for each of the markers.
78 laboratories participated with
a total of 327
stainings. Marks for
the total material of stainings were as follows:
optimal: 37%, good: 32%,
borderline: 17%,
and poor: 14%. The general quality appears
slightly improved compared to previous runs. The
largest proportion of
sufficient (i.e., optimal or
good) stainings were achieved with CD30 (92%),
the smallest with factor VIII (42%).
The main causes for insufficient
stainings are generally the same as in all previous runs
- often in combination: |
|
▪
Insufficient epitope retrieval,
typically when citrate pH 6 is used as buffer
instead of Tris/EDTA pH 9
▪
Inappropriate epitope retrieval, e.g., use of
proteolytic pre-treatment for CD30, CD31 and CD68,
which should all be retrieved with HIER
▪ Too
dilute antibodies (for hCG
also too concentrated antibodies)
▪ Inappropriate
antibodies.
|
|
Via e-mail (about
22
June 2004) all
participants are informed about their individual
scores. Particularly in case of insufficient
stainings, explanation of the probable
causes and suggestions for improvement are given.
If you have not received your score, please contact
us at nordiqc@nja.dk
Run 12 opens 1 September: The markers are CD99,
carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), cytokeratin (CK) 5
(5/6), prostate specific antigen (PSA), and vimentin.
Furthermore, prostate specific acid phosphatase is included as an
optional marker.
A new protocol form has been
constructed, it will be available when run 12
opens. It is password protected. Password will be
sent to all participants in the middle of August:
|
|
April 2004 |
|
|
In Run 10
accomplished January to April 2004, 80
laboratories participated with a total of 376 stainings.
Marks for
the total material of stainings were as follows:
optimal: 34%, good: 28%,
borderline: 22%,
and poor: 17%.
These percentages are almost identical with those of
Run 9 (in spite of different antibodies and tissues).
Noteworthy, the largest proportion of optimal
stainings were achieved with progesterone receptor, the smallest with estrogen receptor. CD15 revealed
the largest proportion of poor stainings.
Run 10
comprised
Alpha smooth muscle actin,
CD15,
Epithelial membrane antigen,
Estrogen receptor alpha and
Progesterone receptor.
Click on one of these to see the general results.
The main causes for insufficient
stainings are the same as in all previous runs:
Insufficient epitope retrieval, too dilute
antibodies and inappropriate antibodies. Following
the advices from NordiQC, it is possible to improve
the staining quality. For example, those
laboratories that changed their ER-protocol from Run
8 to Run 10 according to the advices improved their
score in 10 out of 13 cases, while laboratories that
did not follow the advices improved in only 3 out of
12 cases.
|
|
Via e-mail (1
April 2004) all participants are informed about their
individual scores.
Particularly in case of
insufficient stainings, explanation of the probably
causes and suggestions for improvement are given.
If you have not received your score, please contact
us at nordiqc@nja.dk
Previously we announced that
HER/neu would be included as an extra, optional
marker in Run 12. However, UK-NEQAS has this year
established four HER2/neu runs, in which all Danish
laboratories as well as a number of other Nordic
laboratories participate. Therefore, NordiQC
postpone the inclusion of this marker.
|
 |
Scheme
2004
Run 10 (1 January): ASMA, CD15, EMA; ER, PR
Run 11 (1 April): CD14/CD68, CD30, CD31, FVIIIrag, and HCG.
Run 12 (1 September):
CD99, CK5/6, PSA, PSAP, and vimentin. Photo:
Assessing Run 10 stainings, from the left: Søren Nielsen, Heikki Helin,
Mogens Vyberg, Tomas Seidal and Bjørn Risberg. |
|
December 2003 |
|
|
In
Run 9
accomplished
September to December 2003,
72
laboratories participated
with a total of 304 stainings comprising
CD23,
Cyclin D1,
Chromogranin A,
LMW
Cytokeratin and
Thyroid
transcription factor-1.
Click on one of these to see the results.
At the assessment, marks for the
total material of stainings
were as follows:
optimal: 31%, good: 24%,
borderline: 27%,
and poor: 19%.
Compared to Run 8, the proportion
of optimal staining was
the same, while the
proportions of borderline and poor stainings
were
considerably
larger, because many
laboratories have had difficulties in producing
optimal stainings: While the CD23 stainings were marked
optimal or good in 76%, the Chromogranin A stainings
were only marked optimal or good in 38% and Cyclin
D1 stainings in 48%. As
in all previous runs, more than 2/3 of the protocols
may be improved. In the
present run, protocol changes
appear
to be
urgently needed in about 40%.
|
|
It was
possible to identify the probable
causes of insufficient stainings in the
large majority of
cases allowing individual
advices
for improvement.
The scores
are based on the
NordiQC slides only. We request
the control stainings from the laboratories for
comparison in case of an
insufficient staining of a
NordiQC slide merely
to improve the basis for advices.
Via e-mail (1
December) all participants are informed about their
individual score.
Particularly in case of
insufficient stainings, explanation of the probably
cause and suggestions for improvement are given.
If you have not received your score, please contact
us at nordiqc@nja.dk
Previous member of the core group Emina Torlakovic
left Norway for a position outside the Nordic
countries. As a new member per 1 January 2004 we
welcome Bjørn Risberg.
|
 |
Scheme
2004: Run 10 opens for
enrolment 1 January (deadline
for protocol submission 15 January),
comprising Alpha smooth muscle actin (ASMA), CD15,
Epithelial membrane antigen (EMA), Estrogen receptor (ER), Progesteron
receptor (PR).
Run 11 (1 April): CD14/CD68,
CD30,
CD31, FVIIIrag,
and
HCG.
Run 12 (1 September):
CD99, CK5/6, PSA, PSAP,
and vimentin.
Supplementary: HER2/neu.
Photo: The core group assessing in Run 9. |
|
July 2003 |
|
|

In
Run 8 accomplished
April
to June
2003,
74
laboratories participated
with a total of 350
stainings comprising
CD5,
pan
cytokeratin (CK),
CK7,
CK20,
and
Estrogen receptor (alpha).
At the assessment, marks for the
total material of stainings
were as follows (see diagram):
optimal: 32%, good: 36%,
borderline: 21%,
and poor: 11%.
This means that more than 2/3 of
the protocols may be improved and that
protocol changes are
urgently needed in about 1/3.
There were, however, marked variations between
quality of the various stainings.
E.g., 90% of the CK20 stainings were marked optimal
or good, while only 45% of the ER-stainings got
these marks.
It should be emphasised that the
scores are based on NordiQC slides only. We request
the control stainings from the laboratories for
comparison in case of insufficient staining of a
NordiQC slide, to improve the basis for advices.
Via e-mail (4 July) all participants are informed about their
individual score. In case of insufficient
stainings, explanation of the
probably cause and suggestions for improvement
are given.
There were
five laboratories, which
after a borderline or poor result of one to three stainings in Run 7 requested
slides for restaining after protocol improvement. Their new stainings were re-assessed, and all but one were marked optimal or good. |
|
Run 9 opens for
enrolment 1 September (deadline 15 September), comprising Cyclin D1, CD23,
Chromogranin A,
CK8/LMW-CK, TTF-1 (see details in
Participation).
During 2004 we include new markers as well as some of those previously stained for (marked with *)
that gave the worst results in previous runs. The following
are planned:
Run 10: ER*, PR*,
Her-2-neu, EMA, CD15*.
Run 11: CD31, FVIIIrag,
CD30*, HCG, CD14/CD68*.
Run 12: PSA, PSAP,
CD99, C K5/6, vimentin*. |
|
April 2003 |
|
|
In Run
7 accomplished
January to March 2003,
67
Nordic
laboratories participated. A total of
282
stainings comprising CD34, CD117, Melan-A,
MSA-HMB45 and S-100 were submitted and assessed.
Marks for the total material were as follows: optimal: 39%, good: 32%, borderline:
18%, poor: 11%. The results show that about 60% of the protocols may still be improved and that
protocol changes is urgently needed in about 30%.
These ratios are very close to those of runs 5 and 6 (see previous newsletters). A direct
comparison is of course not possible, as the epitopes are different and
several new laboratories have attended.
Never the less, it is noteworthy how
close the proportions between optimal, good,
borderline and poor are in the various runs. This
emphasises the general observation that most
suboptimal results are due to common
causes of which the most prevailing is insufficient
heat induced epitope retrieval and inappropriate
primary antibody dilution.
|
 |
|
|
To see the detailed
results of Run
7, click on
CD34,
CD117,
MSA-HMB45,
Melan-A and
S-100
protein.
To see the complete list of
assessments from all
runs, click on
Assessments. The individual
scores of Run 7 will be e-mailed to the participants about 15
April.
At the
same time, examples of
good protocols
from Run 7
will be available, click on the epitopes above or on
Protocols.
Run 8,
comprising
the following epitopes:
CD5, Cytokeratin (pan-CK),
CK7, CK20, and Estrogen receptor (alpha)
is now open for registred participants. Attend Run 8
not later than 15 April by filling out the protocol forms, click on
Participation
Run 9,
comprising
Cyclin D1, CD23, Chromogranin A, CK8, and TTF-1,
opens 1 September.
NordiQC
invites all Nordic laboratories
dealing with immunohistochemistry
to take part. An
Invitation letter
were
sent to the scientific pathology
organizations and mailed to all participants
from previous runs about 1 January.
For
the fiscal year 2003
the charge is DKK 5.500 (~ € 740) covering all
expenses from participation in the NordiQC quality
scheme including the assessment of 15 stainings
during 2003 (5 epitopes in each of three runs).
For Nordic laboratories, which did
not reach to participate in Run 7, we offer
participation in Run 8 and 9 for a charge of DKK
4.000 (~ €
550).
|
|
December
2002 |
|
|
In Run 6 (the
second
open NordiQC assessment scheme) accomplished
autumn
2002,
65 Nordic
laboratories participated. A total of 252
stainings were submitted and assessed. The marks
were as follows:
optimal:
38%,
acceptable: 37%, borderline:
17%, poor:
7%.
The results show that almost 2/3
of the protocols may still be improved and that
protocol changes is urgently needed in about 1/4.
The results are very close to those of run 5 (spring
2002). However, a direct comparison is not possible,
as many new laboratories have attended.
To see the detailed
results of Run 6, click on
CD10,
CD20,
CD79a,
Epithelial antigen
Ber-EP4 and
Calretinin.
To see the complete list of
assessments from all
runs, click on
Assessments. The individual
scores of Run 6 will be e-mailed to the participants about 15
December.
Examples of good protocols
from Run 6
are now available, click on the epitopes above or on
Protocols
The fact that more than half of
all Nordic immunohistochemical laboratories have
participated in the last run indicates a great
interest in NordiQC way of quality work. The core
group has now decided to establish NordiQC as a
permanent organization. To finance the work,
however, a charge from the participating
laboratories is necessary.
For 2003
the charge is DKK 5.500 (~ € 740) covering all
expenses from participation in the NordiQC quality
scheme including the assessment of 15 stainings
during 2003 (5 epitopes in each of three runs).
Run 7, January 2003,
comprises the
following epitopes: CD34, CD117, S-100
protein (beta), melanosome
antigen (HMB-45) and Melan-A
(MART-1).
Run 8, April 2003,
comprises
the following epitopes:
CD5, Cytokeratin (pan-),
CK7, CK20, and Estrogen receptor (alpha).
Run 9, September 2003,
comprises
the following epitopes:
Cyclin D1, CD23,
Chromogranin A, CK8, and TTF-1.
NordiQC
invites all Nordic laboratories to take part. An
Invitation letter
(pdf-format:
Adobe Acrobat Reader
needed) will be
sent to the scientific pathology
organizations and mailed to all participants
from previous runs about 1 January. You can attend
the next run now by clicking on
Participation.
|
|
August 2002 |
|
|
The first open NordiQC assessment
scheme, Run 5, accomplished spring 2002, was a great
success with 47 laboratories participating.
A total of 168 stainings were assessed. Of these, 59
(35%) were marked optimal, 67 (40%) acceptable, 33
(20%) borderline, and 9 (5%) poor by the assessors.
The individual scores have been e-mailed to all
participants (if you have not received it, please
contact
NordiQC).
Click on
Assessments to see the
results of the
CD3,
Desmin,
Ki-67 and
Synaptophysin stainings.
NordiQC now opens Run 6, again
inviting all Nordic laboratories to take part. We
think, and hope, that many will take the opportunity
to introduce this quality assurance, which can
contribute to better performance in the field of
immunohistochemistry. An Invitation letter has been sent to the scientific
pathology organizations and will be mailed to all
previous participants about September 1st.
The following five stainings will
be assessed in Run 6: CD10, CD20, CD79a, Calretinin,
and Epithelial antigen Ber EP-4. Click on
Participation to get
the instructions and protocol form. You can
participate in one or more assessments without any
obligations. There will be no charge during 2002.
|
|
May 2002 |
|
|
Run 5, the first
open NordiQC
Assessment is now completed. 45 Nordic
laboratories submitted one or more
stainings (Unfortunately, the Finnish
laboratories were not informed in proper time,
and only one Finnish laboratory participated).
A total of 168
stainings have been
assessed. Of these, 59 (35%) were marked
optimal, 67 (40%) acceptable, 33 (20%) borderline,
and 9 (5%) poor by the assessors.
The major results
are presented at the website. All laboratories are
anonymous with the exception of those that provided
examples of good protocols
giving optimal staining results. In the good
protocols the name of a contact person and her or
his e-mail address is included. This is done to
encourage communication directly between the
laboratories. Of cause, further information can also
be given by the core group.
Click on
Assessments to see the
first results of Run 5 comprising
CD3,
Desmin,
Ki-67 and
Synaptophysin. In the following weeks, we will
continue the analyses of stainings and protocols to
add further details. Any comments to the methods and
results are most welcome.
In a few weeks, all
participants will receive an e-mail with the
assessment of their individual staining results.
Run 6 is planned to
start in August 2002. All participants and the
scientific societies will be
notified. |
|