1
|
Mackie I, Erber WN. The International Council for Standardization in Haematology: 1964-2021. Int J Lab Hematol 2021; 43:884-885. [PMID: 34192424 DOI: 10.1111/ijlh.13637] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/16/2021] [Revised: 05/28/2021] [Accepted: 06/03/2021] [Indexed: 11/28/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Ian Mackie
- Research Department of Haematology, University College London, London, UK
| | - Wendy N Erber
- Biomedical Sciences, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Recent initiatives in harmonization of hemostasis practice. ACTA ACUST UNITED AC 2018; 56:1608-1619. [DOI: 10.1515/cclm-2018-0082] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/22/2018] [Accepted: 03/26/2018] [Indexed: 01/11/2023]
Abstract
Abstract
Accepting that standardizing and harmonizing laboratory practice has considerable value within laboratory medicine, including within the field of hemostasis, this paper concentrates on some recent and important initiatives in harmonizing hemostasis practice. Harmonization of hemostasis practice to improve clinical diagnosis and management is best driven by evidence and, in the absence of evidence, by consensus and expert opinion. To such end, there are various groups involved in such initiatives, and recent initiatives by these groups are highlighted in this review.
Collapse
|
3
|
Hourigan CS, Gale RP, Gormley NJ, Ossenkoppele GJ, Walter RB. Measurable residual disease testing in acute myeloid leukaemia. Leukemia 2017; 31:1482-1490. [PMID: 28386105 DOI: 10.1038/leu.2017.113] [Citation(s) in RCA: 171] [Impact Index Per Article: 24.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/06/2017] [Revised: 03/15/2017] [Accepted: 03/21/2017] [Indexed: 12/24/2022]
Abstract
There is considerable interest in developing techniques to detect and/or quantify remaining leukaemia cells termed measurable or, less precisely, minimal residual disease (MRD) in persons with acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) in complete remission defined by cytomorphological criteria. An important reason for AML MRD-testing is the possibility of estimating the likelihood (and timing) of leukaemia relapse. A perfect MRD-test would precisely quantify leukaemia cells biologically able and likely to cause leukaemia relapse within a defined interval. AML is genetically diverse and there is currently no uniform approach to detecting such cells. Several technologies focused on immune phenotype or cytogenetic and/or molecular abnormalities have been developed, each with advantages and disadvantages. Many studies report a positive MRD-test at diverse time points during AML therapy identifies persons with a higher risk of leukaemia relapse compared with those with a negative MRD-test even after adjusting for other prognostic and predictive variables. No MRD-test in AML has perfect sensitivity and specificity for relapse prediction at the cohort- or subject levels and there are substantial rates of false-positive and -negative tests. Despite these limitations, correlations between MRD-test results and relapse risk have generated interest in MRD-test result-directed therapy interventions. However, convincing proof that a specific intervention will reduce relapse risk in persons with a positive MRD-test is lacking and needs testing in randomized trials. Routine clinical use of MRD-testing requires further refinements and standardization/harmonization of assay platforms and results reporting. Such data are needed to determine whether results of MRD-testing can be used as a surrogate end point in AML therapy trials. This could make drug-testing more efficient and accelerate regulatory approvals. Although MRD-testing in AML has advanced substantially, much remains to be done.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- C S Hourigan
- Myeloid Malignancies Section, Hematology Branch, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - R P Gale
- Haematology Research Centre, Division of Experimental Medicine, Department of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK
| | - N J Gormley
- Division of Hematology Products, Office of Hematology and Oncology Products, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD, USA
| | - G J Ossenkoppele
- Division of Hematology, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - R B Walter
- Clinical Research Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, USA.,Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.,Department of Epidemiology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Abstract
Preanalytical quality is as important as the analytical and postanalytical quality in laboratory diagnostics. After decades of visual inspection to establish whether or not a diagnostic sample may be suitable for testing, automated assessment of hemolysis index (HI) has now become available in a large number of laboratory analyzers. Although most national and international guidelines support systematic assessment of sample quality via HI, there is widespread perception that this indication has not been thoughtfully acknowledged. Potential explanations include concern of increased specimen rejection rate, poor harmonization of analytical techniques, lack of standardized units of measure, differences in instrument-specific cutoff, negative impact on throughput, organization and laboratory economics, and lack of a reliable quality control system. Many of these concerns have been addressed. Evidence now supports automated HI in improving quality and patient safety. These will be discussed.
Collapse
|