DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Harmonization of laboratory results by data adjustment in multicenter clinical trials

  • Lee, Sang Gon (Department of Laboratory Medicine, Green Cross Laboratories) ;
  • Chung, Hee-Jung (Department of Laboratory Medicine, National Cancer Center) ;
  • Park, Jeong Bae (Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Cheil General Hospital & Women's Healthcare Center, Dankook University College of Medicine) ;
  • Park, Hyosoon (Department of Laboratory Medicine, Kangbuk Samsung Hospital, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine) ;
  • Lee, Eun Hee (Department of Laboratory Medicine, Green Cross Laboratories)
  • Received : 2017.01.18
  • Accepted : 2017.04.16
  • Published : 2018.11.01

Abstract

Background/Aims: In multicenter clinical trials, laboratory tests are performed in the laboratory of each center, mostly using different measuring methodologies. The purpose of this study was to evaluate coefficients of variation (CVs) of laboratory results produced by various measuring methods and to determine whether mathematical data adjustment could achieve harmonization between the methods. Methods: We chose 10 clinical laboratories, including Green Cross Laboratories (GC Labs), the central laboratory, for the measurement of total cholesterol, high density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), serum triglycerides, creatinine, and glucose. The serum panels made with patient samples referred to GC Labs were sent to the other laboratories. Twenty serum samples for each analyte were prepared, sent frozen, and analyzed by each participating laboratory. Results: All methods used by participating laboratories for the six analytes had traceability by reference materials and methods. When the results from the nine laboratories were compared with those from GC Labs, the mean CVs for total cholesterol, HDL-C, LDL-C, and glucose analyzed using the same method were 1.7%, 3.7%, 4.3%, and 1.7%, respectively; and those for triglycerides and creatinine analyzed using two different methods were 4.5% and 4.48%, respectively. After adjusting data using Deming regression, the mean CV were 0.7%, 1.4%, 1.8%, 1.4%, 1.6%, and 0.8% for total cholesterol, HDL-C, LDL-C, triglyceride, creatinine, and glucose, respectively. Conclusions: We found that more comparable results can be produced by laboratory data harmonization using commutable samples. Therefore, harmonization efforts should be undertaken in multicenter trials for accurate data analysis (CRIS number; KCT0001235).

Keywords

References

  1. Miller WG, Tate JR, Barth JH, Jones GR. Harmonization: the sample, the measurement, and the report. Ann Lab Med 2014;34:187-197. https://doi.org/10.3343/alm.2014.34.3.187
  2. Greg Miller W, Myers GL, Lou Gantzer M, et al. Roadmap for harmonization of clinical laboratory measurement procedures. Clin Chem 2011;57:1108-1117. https://doi.org/10.1373/clinchem.2011.164012
  3. Horowitz GL, Alter DN, Baskin LB, et al. Hemoglobin A1c (5 Challenge) Participant Summary. Northfield (IL): College of American Pathologists, 2015.
  4. Kim SA, Kim JY, Park JB. Significant interarm blood pressure difference predicts cardiovascular risk in hypertensive patients: CoCoNet study. Medicine (Baltimore) 2016;95:e3888. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000003888
  5. Rifai N, Warnick GR, McNamara JR, Belcher JD, Grinstead GF, Frantz ID Jr. Measurement of low-density-lipoprotein cholesterol in serum: a status report. Clin Chem 1992;38:150-160.
  6. Sugiuchi H, Uji Y, Okabe H, et al. Direct measurement of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol in serum with polyethylene glycol-modified enzymes and sulfated alpha-cyclodextrin. Clin Chem 1995;41:717-723.
  7. Matsuzaki Y, Kawaguchi E, Morita Y, et al. Evaluation of two kinds of reagents for direct determination of HDL-cholesterol. Seibutsu Shiryo Bunseki 1996;19:419-427.
  8. Chung HJ, Chun S, Min WK. Creatinine determination with minimized interference. J Lab Med Qual Assur 2008;30:229-231.
  9. Zawta B, Delanghe J, Van Den Noortgate N, Taes Y, Lam-eire N, Engel W. Arithmetic compensation for pseudo- creatinine Jaffe method and its effect on creatinine clearance results. Clin Chem 2001;47:A148-A149.
  10. Chahal AP. A knowledge-based process for offshoring clinical trials. J Clin Res Best Pract 2006;2. http://www.firstclinical.com/journal/2006/0601_Offshoring.pdf.
  11. Sacks DB, Arnold M, Bakris GL, et al. Guidelines and recommendations for laboratory analysis in the diagnosis and management of diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Care 2011;34:e61-e99. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc11-9998
  12. National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults (Adult Treatment Panel III). Third report of the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults (Adult Treatment Panel III) final report. Circulation 2002;106:3143-3421. https://doi.org/10.1161/circ.106.25.3143
  13. Ricos C, Alvarez V, Cava F, et al. Current databases on biological variation: pros, cons and progress. Scand J Clin Lab Invest 1999;59:491-500. https://doi.org/10.1080/00365519950185229
  14. Myers GL, Kimberly MM, Waymack PP, Smith SJ, Cooper GR, Sampson EJ. A reference method laboratory network for cholesterol: a model for standardization and improvement of clinical laboratory measurements. Clin Chem 2000;46:1762-1772.
  15. Choi JS, Shon BR, Kim YK. A clinical study on the need for glycerol-blanking in triglycerides measurement. Korean J Clin Pathol 1995;15:204-211.
  16. Ichihara K. Statistical considerations for harmonization of the global multicenter study on reference values. Clin Chim Acta 2014;432:108-118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cca.2014.01.025