4.8 Article

Flow Cytometric Analyses of Lymphocyte Markers in Immune Oncology: A Comprehensive Guidance for Validation Practice According to Laws and Standards

Journal

FRONTIERS IN IMMUNOLOGY
Volume 11, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2020.02169

Keywords

flow cytometry; procedures; accreditation; quality control; laboratory diagnostics; validation

Categories

Funding

  1. German Research Foundation (DFG)
  2. Universitat Leipzig

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Many anticancer therapies such as antibody-based therapies, cellular therapeutics (e.g., genetically modified cells, regulators of cytokine signaling, and signal transduction), and other biologically tailored interventions strongly influence the immune system and require tools for research, diagnosis, and monitoring. In flow cytometry,in vitrodiagnostic (IVD) test kits that have been compiled and validated by the manufacturer are not available for all requirements. Laboratories are therefore usually dependent on modifying commercially available assays or, most often, developing them to meet clinical needs. However, both variants must then undergo full validation to fulfill the IVD regulatory requirements. Flow cytometric immunophenotyping is a multiparametric analysis of parameters, some of which have to be repeatedly adjusted; that must be considered when developing specific antibody panels. Careful adjustments of general rules are required to meet legal and regulatory requirements in the analysis of these assays. Here, we describe the relevant regulatory framework for flow cytometry-based assays and describe methods for the introduction of new antibody combinations into routine work including development of performance specifications, validation, and statistical methodology for design and analysis of the experiments. The aim is to increase reliability, efficiency, and auditability after the introduction of in-house-developed flow cytometry assays.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available