共 6 条
Variability of cycle threshold values in an external quality assessment scheme for detection of the SARS-CoV-2 virus genome by RT-PCR
被引:45
作者:
Buchta, Christoph
[2
]
Goerzer, Irene
[1
]
Chiba, Peter
[1
,2
]
Camp, Jeremy, V
[1
]
Holzmann, Heidemarie
[1
]
Puchhammer-Stoeckl, Elisabeth
[1
]
Mayerhofer, Maximilian
[3
]
Mueller, Mathias M.
[2
]
Aberle, Stephan W.
[1
]
机构:
[1] Med Univ Vienna, Ctr Virol, Kinderspitalgasse 15, A-1090 Vienna, Austria
[2] Austrian Assoc Qual Assurance & Standardizat Med, Vienna, Austria
[3] Armament & Def Technol Agcy, NBC & Environm Protect Technol Div, Vienna, Austria
关键词:
Covid-19;
cycle threshold;
external quality assessment;
molecular test;
SARS-CoV-2;
D O I:
10.1515/cclm-2020-1602
中图分类号:
R446 [实验室诊断];
R-33 [实验医学、医学实验];
学科分类号:
1001 ;
摘要:
Objectives: The qualitative results of SARS-CoV-2 specific real-time reverse transcription (RT) PCR are used for initial diagnosis and follow-up of Covid-19 patients and asymptomatic virus carriers. However, clinical decision-making and health management policies often are based additionally on cycle threshold (C-t) values (i.e., quantitative results) to guide patient care, segregation and discharge management of individuals testing positive. Therefore, an analysis of inter-protocol variability is needed to assess the comparability of the quantitative results. Methods: C-t values reported in a SARS-CoV-2 virus genome detection external quality assessment challenge were analyzed. Three positive and two negative samples were distributed to participating test laboratories. Qualitative results (positive/negative) and quantitative results (C-t values) were assessed. Results: A total of 66 laboratories participated, contributing results from 101 distinct test systems and reporting C-t values for a total of 92 different protocols. In all three positive samples, the means of the C-t values for the E-, N-, S-, RdRp-, and ORF1ab-genes varied by less than two cycles. However, 7.7% of reported results deviated by more than +/- 4.0 (maximum 18.0) cycles from the respective individual means. These larger deviations appear to be systematic errors. Conclusions: In an attempt to use PCR diagnostics beyond the identification of infected individuals, laboratories are frequently requested to report C-t values along with a qualitative result. This study highlights the limitations of interpreting C-t values from the various SARS-CoV genome detection protocols and suggests that standardization isnecessary in the reporting of C-t values with respect to the target gene.
引用
收藏
页码:987 / 994
页数:8
相关论文