Practical laboratory medicine · 2021
Comparison of two immunoassays for the measurement of serum HE4 for ovarian cancer.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Barr Chloe E, Funston Garth, Mounce Luke T A, Pemberton Phillip W, Howe Jonathon D, Crosbie Emma J
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: The use of Human Epididymis Protein 4 (HE4) as a biomarker for ovarian cancer is gaining traction, providing the impetus for development of a high throughput automated HE4 assay that is comparable to the conventional manual enzyme immunometric-assay (EIA). The aim of this study was to compare two immunoassay methods for the measurement of serum HE4.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: 1348 serum samples were analysed for serum HE4 using both the EIA and the automated chemiluminescent immunoassay (CLEIA) methods. HE4 values were compared using a Passing-Bablok regression and agreement assessed using Lin's concordance correlation coefficient (CCC). The absolute and percentage bias of the CLEIA compared to EIA was determined.
RESULTS: There was moderate agreement between the two methods (CCC 0.929, 95%CI 0.923-0.936). Passing-Bablok regression demonstrated an overestimation of the CLEIA [constant 4.44 (95%CI 2.96-5.68), slope 1.04 (95%CI 1.02-1.07)]. The CLEIA method had a mean percentage bias of 16.25% compared to the EIA method.
CONCLUSION: The CLEIA significantly overestimated serum HE4 values compared to the EIA, which could impact clinical interpretation and patient management. Further studies are required to develop an appropriate cut-off depending on the population being investigated and the analytic method being used.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: 1348 serum samples were analysed for serum HE4 using both the EIA and the automated chemiluminescent immunoassay (CLEIA) methods. HE4 values were compared using a Passing-Bablok regression and agreement assessed using Lin's concordance correlation coefficient (CCC). The absolute and percentage bias of the CLEIA compared to EIA was determined.
RESULTS: There was moderate agreement between the two methods (CCC 0.929, 95%CI 0.923-0.936). Passing-Bablok regression demonstrated an overestimation of the CLEIA [constant 4.44 (95%CI 2.96-5.68), slope 1.04 (95%CI 1.02-1.07)]. The CLEIA method had a mean percentage bias of 16.25% compared to the EIA method.
CONCLUSION: The CLEIA significantly overestimated serum HE4 values compared to the EIA, which could impact clinical interpretation and patient management. Further studies are required to develop an appropriate cut-off depending on the population being investigated and the analytic method being used.