{"title":"一家三级癌症医院对 cobas Epstein-Barr 病毒检测的分析和临床评估","authors":"Cindy Lee , Younmin Lim , Deborah Saintine , N.Esther Babady","doi":"10.1016/j.jcv.2024.105680","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Epstein–Barr Virus (EBV) viral loads in hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) recipients are typically monitored using quantitative molecular assays. The Cobas EBV test (Roche Molecular, Pleasanton, CA) has recently been FDA-cleared for the monitoring of EBV viral loads in plasma samples of transplant patients. In this study, we compared the viral loads obtained by a laboratory-developed test (EBV LDT) using Altona Analyte specific reagents (ASR) to those obtained on the Cobas EBV test.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>The analytical performance of the assay was established using the EBV verification panel from Exact Diagnostics and the EBV ATCC strain B95-8. The clinical evaluation was performed using 343 plasma samples initially tested on the EBV LDT.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The analytical sensitivity (<18.8 IU/mL), precision (SD < 0.17 log) and linear range (35.0 IU/mL to 1E + 08 IU/mL) of the Cobas EBV assay established by the manufacturers were confirmed. The strength of the qualitative agreement was substantial between the cobas EBV and the EBV LDT (85.6 %; <em>κ</em> = 0.71) and almost perfect when discordant results were resolved (96.4 %; <em>κ</em> = 0.93). The quantitative agreement was moderate (82.9 %; <em>κ</em> = 0.53) with the viral load obtained on the Cobas EBV test being lower across the linear range of the two tests (mean log difference of 1.0). While the absolute values of the viral loads were markedly different, the overall trends observed in patients with multiple consecutive results were similar between the two tests.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>The Cobas EBV test provides an accurate and valid, in vitro diagnostic (IVD) option for monitoring of EBV viral loads in transplant patients and should provide an opportunity for increased standardization and commutability of tests results across laboratories.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":15517,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Virology","volume":"173 ","pages":"Article 105680"},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Analytical and clinical evaluation of the cobas Epstein–Barr virus test at a tertiary care cancer hospital\",\"authors\":\"Cindy Lee , Younmin Lim , Deborah Saintine , N.Esther Babady\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jcv.2024.105680\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Epstein–Barr Virus (EBV) viral loads in hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) recipients are typically monitored using quantitative molecular assays. The Cobas EBV test (Roche Molecular, Pleasanton, CA) has recently been FDA-cleared for the monitoring of EBV viral loads in plasma samples of transplant patients. In this study, we compared the viral loads obtained by a laboratory-developed test (EBV LDT) using Altona Analyte specific reagents (ASR) to those obtained on the Cobas EBV test.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>The analytical performance of the assay was established using the EBV verification panel from Exact Diagnostics and the EBV ATCC strain B95-8. The clinical evaluation was performed using 343 plasma samples initially tested on the EBV LDT.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The analytical sensitivity (<18.8 IU/mL), precision (SD < 0.17 log) and linear range (35.0 IU/mL to 1E + 08 IU/mL) of the Cobas EBV assay established by the manufacturers were confirmed. The strength of the qualitative agreement was substantial between the cobas EBV and the EBV LDT (85.6 %; <em>κ</em> = 0.71) and almost perfect when discordant results were resolved (96.4 %; <em>κ</em> = 0.93). The quantitative agreement was moderate (82.9 %; <em>κ</em> = 0.53) with the viral load obtained on the Cobas EBV test being lower across the linear range of the two tests (mean log difference of 1.0). While the absolute values of the viral loads were markedly different, the overall trends observed in patients with multiple consecutive results were similar between the two tests.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>The Cobas EBV test provides an accurate and valid, in vitro diagnostic (IVD) option for monitoring of EBV viral loads in transplant patients and should provide an opportunity for increased standardization and commutability of tests results across laboratories.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15517,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Clinical Virology\",\"volume\":\"173 \",\"pages\":\"Article 105680\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Clinical Virology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1386653224000428\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"VIROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Virology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1386653224000428","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"VIROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Analytical and clinical evaluation of the cobas Epstein–Barr virus test at a tertiary care cancer hospital
Background
Epstein–Barr Virus (EBV) viral loads in hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) recipients are typically monitored using quantitative molecular assays. The Cobas EBV test (Roche Molecular, Pleasanton, CA) has recently been FDA-cleared for the monitoring of EBV viral loads in plasma samples of transplant patients. In this study, we compared the viral loads obtained by a laboratory-developed test (EBV LDT) using Altona Analyte specific reagents (ASR) to those obtained on the Cobas EBV test.
Methods
The analytical performance of the assay was established using the EBV verification panel from Exact Diagnostics and the EBV ATCC strain B95-8. The clinical evaluation was performed using 343 plasma samples initially tested on the EBV LDT.
Results
The analytical sensitivity (<18.8 IU/mL), precision (SD < 0.17 log) and linear range (35.0 IU/mL to 1E + 08 IU/mL) of the Cobas EBV assay established by the manufacturers were confirmed. The strength of the qualitative agreement was substantial between the cobas EBV and the EBV LDT (85.6 %; κ = 0.71) and almost perfect when discordant results were resolved (96.4 %; κ = 0.93). The quantitative agreement was moderate (82.9 %; κ = 0.53) with the viral load obtained on the Cobas EBV test being lower across the linear range of the two tests (mean log difference of 1.0). While the absolute values of the viral loads were markedly different, the overall trends observed in patients with multiple consecutive results were similar between the two tests.
Conclusions
The Cobas EBV test provides an accurate and valid, in vitro diagnostic (IVD) option for monitoring of EBV viral loads in transplant patients and should provide an opportunity for increased standardization and commutability of tests results across laboratories.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Clinical Virology, an esteemed international publication, serves as the official journal for both the Pan American Society for Clinical Virology and The European Society for Clinical Virology. Dedicated to advancing the understanding of human virology in clinical settings, the Journal of Clinical Virology focuses on disseminating research papers and reviews pertaining to the clinical aspects of virology. Its scope encompasses articles discussing diagnostic methodologies and virus-induced clinical conditions, with an emphasis on practicality and relevance to clinical practice.
The journal publishes on topics that include:
• new diagnostic technologies
• nucleic acid amplification and serologic testing
• targeted and metagenomic next-generation sequencing
• emerging pandemic viral threats
• respiratory viruses
• transplant viruses
• chronic viral infections
• cancer-associated viruses
• gastrointestinal viruses
• central nervous system viruses
• one health (excludes animal health)