[Histonet] How are you applying this?

[Joelle Weaver]

Yes, have prepared this summary for each newly validated AB over the past couple of years, with the included statement and signature of the medical director. 


Joelle Weaver MAOM, HTL (ASCP) QIHC

        
  

 
From: Wanda.Borowicz <@t> sanfordhealth.org
To: histonet <@t> lists.utsouthwestern.edu
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2015 21:02:53 +0000
Subject: [Histonet] How are you applying this?

Hi All,
 
Below is a copy of the revised COM.40000 CAP checklist question.  Now that Anatomic Pathology is having to comply with the All Common checklist, how are you applying this to your Immunohistochemistry ASR’s which are not FDA approved. We do new antibody validation and parallel testing with new lot numbers and clones.  Is this enough?  Can’t really see how the highlighted area pertains to this. Any advice would be appreciated. Thank.
 
 
 
REVISED**       04/21/2014
 
COM.40000
 
 
Method Validation/Verification Approval
 
 
Phase II
 
 
 
 
There is a summary statement, signed by the laboratory director (or designee who meets CAP director qualifications) prior to use in patient testing, documenting evaluation of validation/verification studies and approval of each test for clinical use.
 
NOTE:  This checklist item is applicable only to tests implemented after June 15, 2009.
 
The summary statement must include a written assessment of the validation/verification study, including the acceptability of the data. The summary must also include a statement approving the test for clinical use with the approval signature such as, "This validation study has been reviewed, and the performance of the method is considered acceptable for patient testing."
 
For an FDA-cleared/approved test, a summary of the verification data must address analytic performance specifications, including analytic accuracy, precision, interferences, and reportable range, as applicable.
 
In addition, for modified FDA-cleared/approved tests or LDTs, the summary must address analytical sensitivity, analytical specificity and any other parameter that is considered important to assure that the analytical performance of a test (e.g. specimen stability, reagent stability, linearity, carryover, and cross-contamination, etc.), as appropriate and applicable.
 
If the laboratory makes clinical claims about its tests, the summary must address the validation of these claims.
 
See the Method Performance Specifications section for details concerning validation/verification.
 
Evidence of Compliance:
 
✓      Summary of validation/verification studies with review and approval
 
REFERENCES
 
1)
 
 
Lawrence Jennings, Vivianna M. Van Deerlin, Margaret L. Gulley (2009) Recommended Principles and Practices for Validating Clinical Molecular Pathology Tests. Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine: Vol. 133, No. 5, pp. 743-755
 
 
 
 
 
 
Wanda Borowicz HT(ASCP)
Histology Supervisor
Sanford Health North
1720 S. University Dr.
Route 1902
Fargo, ND 58103
Ph-701 417 4930
Fax-701 417 4399
wanda.borowicz <@t> sanfordhealth.org<mailto:wanda.borowicz <@t> sanfordhealth.org>
 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments,
is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain
privileged and confidential information.  Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure or distribution is prohibited.  If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy
all copies of the original message.

_______________________________________________
Histonet mailing list
Histonet <@t> lists.utsouthwestern.edu
http://lists.utsouthwestern.edu/mailman/listinfo/histonet