Variability of the IFN-γ ELISpot assay in the context of proficiency testing and bridging studies.

Assays that assess cellular mediated immune responses performed under Good Clinical Laboratory Practice (GCLP) guidelines are required to provide specific and reproducible results. Defined validation procedures are required to establish the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP), include pass and fail criteria, as well as implement positivity criteria. However, little to no guidance is provided on how to perform longitudinal assessment of the key reagents utilized in the assay. Through the External Quality Assurance Program Oversight Laboratory (EQAPOL), an Interferon-gamma (IFN-γ) Enzyme-linked immunosorbent spot (ELISpot) assay proficiency testing program is administered. A limit of acceptable within site variability was estimated after six rounds of proficiency testing (PT). Previously, a PT send-out specific within site variability limit was calculated based on the dispersion (variance/mean) of the nine replicate wells of data. Now an overall 'dispersion limit' for the ELISpot PT program within site variability has been calculated as a dispersion of 3.3. The utility of this metric was assessed using a control sample to calculate the within (precision) and between (accuracy) experiment variability to determine if the dispersion limit could be applied to bridging studies (studies that assess lot-to-lot variations of key reagents) for comparing the accuracy of results with new lots to results with old lots. Finally, simulations were conducted to explore how this dispersion limit could provide guidance in the number of replicate wells needed for within and between experiment variability and the appropriate donor reactivity (number of antigen-specific cells) to be used for the evaluation of new reagents. Our bridging study simulations indicate using a minimum of six replicate wells of a control donor sample with reactivity of at least 150 spot forming cells per well is optimal. To determine significant lot-to-lot variations use the 3.3 dispersion limit for between and within experiment variability.

Assessment of Two Diabetes Point-of-Care Analyzers Measuring Hemoglobin A1c in the Peruvian Amazon

Aims: Measurement of glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) is an important indicator of glucose control over time. Point-of-care (POC) devices allow for rapid and convenient measurement of HbA1c, greatly facilitating diabetes care. We assessed two POC analyzers in the Peruvian Amazon where laboratory-based HbA1c testing is not available.

Methods: Venous blood samples were collected from 203 individuals from six different Amazonian communities with a wide range of HbA1c, 4.4-9.0% (25-75 mmol/mol). The results of the Afinion AS100 and the DCA Vantage POC analyzers were compared to a central laboratory using the Premier Hb9210 high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) method. Imprecision was assessed by performing 14 successive tests of a single blood sample.

Results: The correlation coefficient r for POC and HPLC results was 0.92 for the Afinion and 0.93 for the DCA Vantage. The Afinion generated higher HbA1c results than the HPLC (mean difference = +0.56% [+6 mmol/mol]; p < 0.001), as did the DCA Vantage (mean difference = +0.32% [4 mmol/mol]). The bias observed between POC and HPLC did not vary by HbA1c level for the DCA Vantage (p = 0.190), but it did for the Afinion (p < 0.001). Imprecision results were: CV = 1.75% for the Afinion, CV = 4.01% for the DCA Vantage. Sensitivity was 100% for both devices, specificity was 48.3% for the Afinion and 85.1% for the DCA Vantage, positive predictive value (PPV) was 14.4% for the Afinion and 34.9% for the DCA Vantage, and negative predictive value (NPV) for both devices was 100%. The area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was 0.966 for the Afinion and 0.982 for the DCA Vantage. Agreement between HPLC and POC in classifying diabetes and prediabetes status was slight for the Afinion (Kappa = 0.12) and significantly different (McNemar’s statistic = 89; p < 0.001), and moderate for the DCA Vantage (Kappa = 0.45) and significantly different (McNemar’s statistic = 28; p < 0.001).

Conclusions: Despite significant variation of HbA1c results between the Afinion and DCA Vantage analyzers compared to HPLC, we conclude that both analyzers should be considered in health clinics in the Peruvian Amazon for therapeutic adjustments if healthcare workers are aware of the differences relative to testing in a clinical laboratory. However, imprecision and bias were not low enough to recommend either device for screening purposes, and the local prevalence of anemia and malaria may interfere with diagnostic determinations for a substantial portion of the population.

Collimation of a D-D Neutron Generator for Clinical Implementation of Neutron Stimulated Emission Computed Tomography: a Monte Carlo Study

This work is an investigation into collimator designs for a deuterium-deuterium (DD) neutron generator for an inexpensive and compact neutron imaging system that can be implemented in a hospital. The envisioned application is for a spectroscopic imaging technique called neutron stimulated emission computed tomography (NSECT).

Previous NSECT studies have been performed using a Van-de-Graaff accelerator at the Triangle Universities Nuclear Laboratory (TUNL) in Duke University. This facility has provided invaluable research into the development of NSECT. To transition the current imaging method into a clinically feasible system, there is a need for a high-intensity fast neutron source that can produce collimated beams. The DD neutron generator from Adelphi Technologies Inc. is being explored as a possible candidate to provide the uncollimated neutrons. This DD generator is a compact source that produces 2.5 MeV fast neutrons with intensities of 1012 n/s (4π). The neutron energy is sufficient to excite most isotopes of interest in the body with the exception of carbon and oxygen. However, a special collimator is needed to collimate the 4π neutron emission into a narrow beam. This work describes the development and evaluation of a series of collimator designs to collimate the DD generator for narrow beams suitable for NSECT imaging.

A neutron collimator made of high-density polyethylene (HDPE) and lead was modeled and simulated using the GEANT4 toolkit. The collimator was designed as a 52 x 52 x 52 cm3 HDPE block coupled with 1 cm lead shielding. Non-tapering (cylindrical) and tapering (conical) opening designs were modeled into the collimator to permit passage of neutrons. The shape, size, and geometry of the aperture were varied to assess the effects on the collimated neutron beam. Parameters varied were: inlet diameter (1-5 cm), outlet diameter (1-5 cm), aperture diameter (0.5-1.5 cm), and aperture placement (13-39 cm). For each combination of collimator parameters, the spatial and energy distributions of neutrons and gammas were tracked and analyzed to determine three performance parameters: neutron beam-width, primary neutron flux, and the output quality. To evaluate these parameters, the simulated neutron beams are then regenerated for a NSECT breast scan. Scan involved a realistic breast lesion implanted into an anthropomorphic female phantom.

This work indicates potential for collimating and shielding a DD neutron generator for use in a clinical NSECT system. The proposed collimator designs produced a well-collimated neutron beam that can be used for NSECT breast imaging. The aperture diameter showed a strong correlation to the beam-width, where the collimated neutron beam-width was about 10% larger than the physical aperture diameter. In addition, a collimator opening consisting of a tapering inlet and cylindrical outlet allowed greater neutron throughput when compared to a simple cylindrical opening. The tapering inlet design can allow additional neutron throughput when the neck is placed farther from the source. On the other hand, the tapering designs also decrease output quality (i.e. increase in stray neutrons outside the primary collimated beam). All collimators are cataloged in measures of beam-width, neutron flux, and output quality. For a particular NSECT application, an optimal choice should be based on the collimator specifications listed in this work.