Operationalizing accreditation standards for laboratory-developed next-generation sequencing validation of CFTR amplicon-based assays.

IF 1
Muhammad Fareeduddin, Muhammad Usama, Shakir Hussain, Rukhsana Syed Aamir Zahir, Nada Sikander, Javeria Aijaz
{"title":"Operationalizing accreditation standards for laboratory-developed next-generation sequencing validation of CFTR amplicon-based assays.","authors":"Muhammad Fareeduddin, Muhammad Usama, Shakir Hussain, Rukhsana Syed Aamir Zahir, Nada Sikander, Javeria Aijaz","doi":"10.1093/labmed/lmag049","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Application of College of American Pathologists (CAP) standards for molecular next-generation sequencing assays, typically high-complexity laboratory-developed tests, requires assay-specific, principled translation. We sought to systematically apply CAP laboratory-developed test validation requirements for next-generating sequencing to targeted CFTR gene sequencing on an Illumina iSeq100 Sequencing System and to address assay-specific translational guidance gaps.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We evaluated the analytic performance (accuracy, precision, analytic sensitivity, and specificity) and other requirements (eg, confirmatory testing, proficiency testing) in a CAP-accredited laboratory, including assessment of logistics (eg, turnaround time, cost), with particular attention to feasibility for smaller laboratories.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Variant calls showed complete concordance across analytic parameters but, as the sole outcome measure, obscured subthreshold effects of experimental variables and random variability. Critical site depth analysis was essential to reveal these effects.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Per-sample costs depend on batch size; smaller laboratories can reduce costs through centralization or sample pooling, although pooling requires longer turnaround (weeks to months), even on a iSeq100 system, potentially causing misalignment of CAP proficiency testing and batch schedules. This issue mandates self-evaluation and code 11 selection for CAP proficiency testing submissions. Real-time sample preparation, however, precludes running negative and internal controls with each processing run, necessitating process controls (eg, minor allele frequency, alternate allele determination) and an individualized quality control plan.</p>","PeriodicalId":94124,"journal":{"name":"Laboratory medicine","volume":"57 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-08-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Laboratory medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/labmed/lmag049","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Application of College of American Pathologists (CAP) standards for molecular next-generation sequencing assays, typically high-complexity laboratory-developed tests, requires assay-specific, principled translation. We sought to systematically apply CAP laboratory-developed test validation requirements for next-generating sequencing to targeted CFTR gene sequencing on an Illumina iSeq100 Sequencing System and to address assay-specific translational guidance gaps.

Methods: We evaluated the analytic performance (accuracy, precision, analytic sensitivity, and specificity) and other requirements (eg, confirmatory testing, proficiency testing) in a CAP-accredited laboratory, including assessment of logistics (eg, turnaround time, cost), with particular attention to feasibility for smaller laboratories.

Results: Variant calls showed complete concordance across analytic parameters but, as the sole outcome measure, obscured subthreshold effects of experimental variables and random variability. Critical site depth analysis was essential to reveal these effects.

Discussion: Per-sample costs depend on batch size; smaller laboratories can reduce costs through centralization or sample pooling, although pooling requires longer turnaround (weeks to months), even on a iSeq100 system, potentially causing misalignment of CAP proficiency testing and batch schedules. This issue mandates self-evaluation and code 11 selection for CAP proficiency testing submissions. Real-time sample preparation, however, precludes running negative and internal controls with each processing run, necessitating process controls (eg, minor allele frequency, alternate allele determination) and an individualized quality control plan.

实施实验室开发的基于CFTR扩增子的新一代测序验证的认可标准。
简介:应用美国病理学家学院(CAP)标准的分子下一代测序分析,通常是高复杂性的实验室开发的测试,需要分析特定的,有原则的翻译。我们试图系统地将CAP实验室开发的下一代测序的测试验证要求应用于Illumina iSeq100测序系统上的靶向CFTR基因测序,并解决分析特异性翻译指导的空白。方法:我们评估了cap认可实验室的分析性能(准确性、精密度、分析灵敏度和特异性)和其他要求(如验证性测试、熟练性测试),包括物流评估(如周转时间、成本),并特别关注小型实验室的可行性。结果:变量呼叫显示了分析参数之间的完全一致性,但是,作为唯一的结果测量,模糊了实验变量和随机变异性的亚阈值效应。关键地点深度分析对于揭示这些影响至关重要。讨论:每个样品的成本取决于批量大小;较小的实验室可以通过集中或样品池来降低成本,尽管池化需要更长的周转时间(几周到几个月),即使是在iSeq100系统上,也可能导致CAP熟练测试和批次计划的不一致。这个问题要求对CAP能力测试提交进行自我评估和代码11选择。然而,实时样品制备排除了每次处理运行阴性和内部控制,需要过程控制(例如,次要等位基因频率,替代等位基因测定)和个性化的质量控制计划。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书