|
KMID : 1143620210250010034
|
|
Korean Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology
2021 Volume.25 No. 1 p.34 ~ p.40
|
|
|
Radioimmunoassay Reagent Survey and Evaluation
|
|
Kim Ji-Na
An Jae-Seok
Jeon Young-Woo
Yoon Sang-Hyuk
Kim Yoon-Cheol
|
|
|
Abstract
|
|
|
Purpose: If a new test is introduced or reagents are changed in the laboratory of a medical institution, the characteristics of the test should be analyzed according to the procedure and the assessment of reagents should be made. However, several necessary conditions must be met to perform all required comparative evaluations, first enough samples should be prepared for each test, and secondly, various reagents applicable to the comparative evaluations must be supplied. Even if enough comparative evaluations have been done, there is a limit to the fact that the data variation for the new reagent represents the overall patient data variation, The fact puts a burden on the laboratory to the change the reagent. Due to these various difficulties, reagent changes in the laboratory are limited. In order to introduce a competitive bid, the institute conducted a full investigation of Radioimmunoassay(RIA) reagents for each test and established the range of reagents available in the laboratory through comparative evaluations. We wanted to share this process.
Materials and Methods: There are 20 items of tests conducted in our laboratory except for consignment tests. For each test, RIA reagents that can be used were fully investigated with the reference to external quality control report. and the manuals for each reagent were obtained. Each reagent was checked for the manual to check the test method, Incubation time, sample volume needed for the test. After that, the primary selection was made according to whether it was available in this laboratory. The primary selected reagents were supplied with 2kits based on 100tests, and the data correlation test, sensitivity measurement, recovery rate measurement, and dilution test were conducted. The secondary selection was performed according to the results of the comparative evaluation. The reagents that passed the primary and secondary selections were submitted to the competitive bidding list. In the case of reagent is designated as a singular, we submitted a explanatory statement with the data obtained during the primary and secondary selection processes.
Results: Excluded from the primary selection was the case where TAT was expected to be delayed at the moment, and it was impossible to apply to our equipment due to the large volume of reagents used during the test. In the primary selection, there were five items which only one reagent was available.(squamous cell carcinoma Ag(SCC Ag), β-human chorionic gonadotropin(β-HCG), vitamin B12, folate, free testosterone), two reagents were available(CA19-9, CA125, CA72-4, ferritin, thyroglobulin antibody(TG Ab), microsomal antibody(Mic Ab), thyroid stimulating hormone-receptor-antibody(TSH-R-Ab), calcitonin), three reagents were available (triiodothyronine(T3), Tree T3, Free T4, TSH, intact parathyroid hormone(intact PTH)) and four reagents were available are carcinoembryonic antigen(CEA), TG. In the secondary selection, there were eight items which only one reagent was available.(ferritin, TG, CA19-9, SCC, β-HCG, vitaminB12, folate, free testosterone), two reagents were available(TG Ab, Mic Ab, TSH-R-Ab, CA125, CA72-4, intact PTH, calcitonin), three reagents were available(T3, Tree T3, Free T4, TSH, CEA). Reasons excluded from the secondary selection were the lack of reagent supply for comparative evaluations, the problems with data reproducibility, and the inability to accept data variations. The most problematic part of comparative evaluations was sample collection. It didn't matter if the number of samples requested was large and the capacity needed for the test was small. It was difficult to collect various concentration samples in the case of a small number of tests(100 cases per month or less), and it was difficult to conduct a recovery rate test in the case of a relatively large volume of samples required for a single test(more than 100 uL). In addition, the lack of dilution solution or standard zero material for sensitivity measurement or dilution tests was one of the problems.
Conclusion: Comparative evaluation for changing test reagents require appropriate preparation time to collect diverse and sufficient samples. In addition, setting the total sample volume and reagent volume range required for comparative evaluations, depending on the sample volume and reagent volume required for one test, will reduce the burden of sample collection and planning for each comparative evaluation.
|
|
|
KEYWORD
|
|
|
Primary selection, secondary selection, evaluation
|
|
|
FullTexts / Linksout information
|
|
|
|
|
|
Listed journal information
|
|
|
|
|