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.

Development and Testing of An Automatic Lung IMRT Planning Algorithm

Knowledge-based radiation treatment is an emerging concept in radiotherapy. It

mainly refers to the technique that can guide or automate treatment planning in

clinic by learning from prior knowledge. Dierent models are developed to realize

it, one of which is proposed by Yuan et al. at Duke for lung IMRT planning. This

model can automatically determine both beam conguration and optimization ob-

jectives with non-coplanar beams based on patient-specic anatomical information.

Although plans automatically generated by this model demonstrate equivalent or

better dosimetric quality compared to clinical approved plans, its validity and gener-

ality are limited due to the empirical assignment to a coecient called angle spread

constraint dened in the beam eciency index used for beam ranking. To eliminate

these limitations, a systematic study on this coecient is needed to acquire evidences

for its optimal value.

To achieve this purpose, eleven lung cancer patients with complex tumor shape

with non-coplanar beams adopted in clinical approved plans were retrospectively

studied in the frame of the automatic lung IMRT treatment algorithm. The primary

and boost plans used in three patients were treated as dierent cases due to the

dierent target size and shape. A total of 14 lung cases, thus, were re-planned using

the knowledge-based automatic lung IMRT planning algorithm by varying angle

spread constraint from 0 to 1 with increment of 0.2. A modied beam angle eciency

index used for navigate the beam selection was adopted. Great eorts were made to assure the quality of plans associated to every angle spread constraint as good

as possible. Important dosimetric parameters for PTV and OARs, quantitatively

re

ecting the plan quality, were extracted from the DVHs and analyzed as a function

of angle spread constraint for each case. Comparisons of these parameters between

clinical plans and model-based plans were evaluated by two-sampled Students t-tests,

and regression analysis on a composite index built on the percentage errors between

dosimetric parameters in the model-based plans and those in the clinical plans as a

function of angle spread constraint was performed.

Results show that model-based plans generally have equivalent or better quality

than clinical approved plans, qualitatively and quantitatively. All dosimetric param-

eters except those for lungs in the automatically generated plans are statistically

better or comparable to those in the clinical plans. On average, more than 15% re-

duction on conformity index and homogeneity index for PTV and V40, V60 for heart

while an 8% and 3% increase on V5, V20 for lungs, respectively, are observed. The

intra-plan comparison among model-based plans demonstrates that plan quality does

not change much with angle spread constraint larger than 0.4. Further examination

on the variation curve of the composite index as a function of angle spread constraint

shows that 0.6 is the optimal value that can result in statistically the best achievable

plans.