Clinical chemistry · 2021
Harmonization of LC-MS/MS Measurements of Plasma Free Normetanephrine, Metanephrine, and 3-Methoxytyramine.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Peitzsch Mirko, Novos Talia, Kaden Denise, Kurlbaum Max, van Herwaarden Antonius E, Müller Daniel, Adaway Jo, Grouzmann Eric, McWhinney Brett, Hoad Kirsten, Woollard Gerald, Kema Ido, Boot Christopher, Fassnacht Martin, Sweep Fred, Loh Tze P, Horvath Andrea R, Eisenhofer Graeme
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Plasma-free normetanephrine and metanephrine (metanephrines) are the recommended biomarkers for testing of pheochromocytoma and paraganglioma (PPGL). This study evaluated the status of harmonization of liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry-based measurements of plasma metanephrines and methoxytyramine and clinical interpretation of test results.
METHODS: 125 plasma samples from patients tested for PPGLs were analyzed in 12 laboratories. Analytical performance was also assessed from results of a proficiency-testing program. Agreement of test results from different laboratories was assessed by Passing-Bablok regression and Bland-Altman analysis. Agreement in clinical test interpretation based on laboratory specific reference intervals was also examined.
RESULTS: Comparisons of analytical test results by regression analysis revealed strong correlations for normetanephrine and metanephrine (R ≥ 0.95) with mean slopes of 1.013 (range 0.975-1.078), and 1.019 (range 0.963-1.081), and intercepts of -0.584 (-53.736 to 54.790) and -3.194 (-17.152 to 5.933), respectively. The mean bias between methods was 1.2% (-11.6% to 16.0%) for metanephrine and 0.1% (-18.0% to 9.5%) for normetanephrine. Measurements of 3-methoxytyramine revealed suboptimal agreement between laboratories with biases ranging from -32.2% to 64.0%. Interrater agreement in test interpretation was >94% for metanephrine and >84% for normetanephrine; improvements in interrater agreement were observed with use of harmonized reference intervals, including age-specific cut-offs for normetanephrine.
CONCLUSIONS: Analytical methods for metanephrines are well harmonized between laboratories. However, the 16% disagreement in test interpretation for normetanephrine suggests use of suboptimal method-dependent reference intervals for clinical decision-making for this metabolite. Improved analytical methods and reference interval harmonization are particularly required for 3-methoxytyramine.
METHODS: 125 plasma samples from patients tested for PPGLs were analyzed in 12 laboratories. Analytical performance was also assessed from results of a proficiency-testing program. Agreement of test results from different laboratories was assessed by Passing-Bablok regression and Bland-Altman analysis. Agreement in clinical test interpretation based on laboratory specific reference intervals was also examined.
RESULTS: Comparisons of analytical test results by regression analysis revealed strong correlations for normetanephrine and metanephrine (R ≥ 0.95) with mean slopes of 1.013 (range 0.975-1.078), and 1.019 (range 0.963-1.081), and intercepts of -0.584 (-53.736 to 54.790) and -3.194 (-17.152 to 5.933), respectively. The mean bias between methods was 1.2% (-11.6% to 16.0%) for metanephrine and 0.1% (-18.0% to 9.5%) for normetanephrine. Measurements of 3-methoxytyramine revealed suboptimal agreement between laboratories with biases ranging from -32.2% to 64.0%. Interrater agreement in test interpretation was >94% for metanephrine and >84% for normetanephrine; improvements in interrater agreement were observed with use of harmonized reference intervals, including age-specific cut-offs for normetanephrine.
CONCLUSIONS: Analytical methods for metanephrines are well harmonized between laboratories. However, the 16% disagreement in test interpretation for normetanephrine suggests use of suboptimal method-dependent reference intervals for clinical decision-making for this metabolite. Improved analytical methods and reference interval harmonization are particularly required for 3-methoxytyramine.