Analytic Validation of Immunohistochemistry Assays: New Benchmark Data From a Survey of 1085 Laboratories

Context.--A cooperative agreement between the College of American Pathologists (CAP) and the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention was undertaken to measure laboratories' awareness and implementation of an evidence-based laboratory practice guideline (LPG) on immunohistochemical (IHC) validation practices published in 2014. Objective.--To establish new benchmark data on IHC laboratory practices. Design.--A 2015 survey on IHC assay validation practices was sent to laboratories subscribed to specific CAP proficiency testing programs and to additional non subscribing laboratories that perform IHC testing. Specific questions were designed to capture laboratory practices not addressed in a 2010 survey. Results.--The analysis was based on responses from 1085 laboratories that perform IHC staining. Ninety-six percent (809 of 844) always documented validation of IHC assays. Sixty percent (648 of 1078) had separate procedures for predictive and nonpredictive markers, 42.7% (220 of 515) had procedures for laboratory-developed tests, 50% (349 of 697) had procedures for testing cytologic specimens, and 46.2% (363 of 785) had procedures for testing decalcified specimens. Minimum case numbers were specified by 85.9% (720 of 838) of laboratories for non-predictive markers and 76% (584 of 768) for predictive markers. Median concordance requirements were 95% for both types. For initial validation, 75.4% (538 of 714) of laboratories adopted the 20-case minimum for non-predictive markers and 45.9% (266 of 579) adopted the 40-case minimum for predictive markers as outlined in the 2014 LPG. The most common method for validation was correlation with morphology and expected results. Laboratories also reported which assay changes necessitated revalidation and their minimum case requirements. Conclusions.--Benchmark data on current IHC validation practices and procedures may help laboratories understand the issues and influence further refinement of LPG recommendations. (Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2017;141:1255-1261; doi: 10.5858/arpa.2016-0559-CP)
In 2015, the College of American Pathologists (CAP) conducted a survey of laboratory practices to examine the current state of immunohistochemical assay (IHC) validation procedures, assess general awareness of the [...]