Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 29, 2026
A 96 Well Microtiter Plate-based Method for Monitoring Formation and Antifungal Susceptibility Testing of Candida albicans Biofilms
Published on: October 21, 2010
Fungal false positive in BioFire® FilmArray® analysis for bloodstream infection
Osamu Imataki1, Ryoko Masumoto2, Masahiro Hamano2
1Department of Laboratory Medicine, Kawasaki Medical School, General Medical Center, 2-6-1 Nakasange, Kita-district, Okayama city, Okayama 700-8505, Japan; Department of Laboratory Medicine, Kawasaki Medical School, 577 Matsushima, Kurashiki city, Okayama 701-0192, Japan.
Background:
The BioFire FilmArray® system is an automated multiplex PCR tool for detecting pathogens in clinical samples. False positives occasionally occur due to cross-reactivity, contamination, or assay specificity issues. This study investigated false-positive fungal results in FilmArray® blood culture identification panel 2 (BCID2) detection system.
Method:
We collected the continuous cases in which bloodstream infection (BSI) was suspected in our institute for 12 months, from April in 2024 to March in 2025. We routinely used Bactec FX culture system (Beckton Dickinson) with BD BACTEC culture bottles. Alongside, we identified fungus using standard culture method and matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization-time of flight mass spectrometry (biomerieux, VITEK MS PRIME).
Results:
We evaluated continuous 454 blood culture positive sample. Average blood culture sampling were totally 5357 samples per year (44.3/1000 patients days) of blood cultures during our study period. We collected 28 cases of fungemia among totally recruited 454 samples (6.2 %, 28/454). Accordance of blood culture and FilmArray® were 50.0 % (14 samples). We observed eight false positive samples (1.8 %. 8/454) as fungemia out of total 454 samples, in where one false organism was Candida albicans and seven were Candida tropicalis. In the cases of four false Candida tropicalis samples, the FilmArray® reported the two fungal combination, Candida parapsilosis and Candida tropicalis.
Conclusion:
Our investigation revealed a substantial incident of false positive of Candida. The study highlights recurrent false positives of Candida tropicalis, often detected alongside Candida parapsilosis. The main cause of the detection of false positive organism in BCID2 including Candida spp. has been reported as contamination or technical errors. We speculated that our observation could be derived from the non-viable DNA fragments (Candida albicans) contained in the blood culture media and cross-reaction of Candida parapsilosis with Candida tropicalis. We should remember these FilmArray® assay limitations linked to non-viable DNA contamination and high reactivity of sensitive PCR analysis. False positive results for Candida spp. in BCID2 assays require careful interpretation with microbiological expertise. Clinical decisions should be guided by the patient's overall context. Further research is necessary to assess the accuracy of fungal BSI. (341/500 words).
