Cargando…
Comparison of two immunoassays for the measurement of serum HE4 for ovarian cancer
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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Elsevier
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8138765/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34036134 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.plabm.2021.e00235 |
_version_ | 1783695872447479808 |
---|---|
author | Barr, Chloe E. Funston, Garth Mounce, Luke T.A. Pemberton, Phillip W. Howe, Jonathon D. Crosbie, Emma J. |
author_facet | Barr, Chloe E. Funston, Garth Mounce, Luke T.A. Pemberton, Phillip W. Howe, Jonathon D. Crosbie, Emma J. |
author_sort | Barr, Chloe E. |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8138765 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | Elsevier |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-81387652021-05-24 Comparison of two immunoassays for the measurement of serum HE4 for ovarian cancer Barr, Chloe E. Funston, Garth Mounce, Luke T.A. Pemberton, Phillip W. Howe, Jonathon D. Crosbie, Emma J. Pract Lab Med Article 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. Elsevier 2021-05-09 /pmc/articles/PMC8138765/ /pubmed/34036134 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.plabm.2021.e00235 Text en © 2021 The Author(s) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Article Barr, Chloe E. Funston, Garth Mounce, Luke T.A. Pemberton, Phillip W. Howe, Jonathon D. Crosbie, Emma J. Comparison of two immunoassays for the measurement of serum HE4 for ovarian cancer |
title | Comparison of two immunoassays for the measurement of serum HE4 for ovarian cancer |
title_full | Comparison of two immunoassays for the measurement of serum HE4 for ovarian cancer |
title_fullStr | Comparison of two immunoassays for the measurement of serum HE4 for ovarian cancer |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of two immunoassays for the measurement of serum HE4 for ovarian cancer |
title_short | Comparison of two immunoassays for the measurement of serum HE4 for ovarian cancer |
title_sort | comparison of two immunoassays for the measurement of serum he4 for ovarian cancer |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8138765/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34036134 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.plabm.2021.e00235 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT barrchloee comparisonoftwoimmunoassaysforthemeasurementofserumhe4forovariancancer AT funstongarth comparisonoftwoimmunoassaysforthemeasurementofserumhe4forovariancancer AT mounceluketa comparisonoftwoimmunoassaysforthemeasurementofserumhe4forovariancancer AT pembertonphillipw comparisonoftwoimmunoassaysforthemeasurementofserumhe4forovariancancer AT howejonathond comparisonoftwoimmunoassaysforthemeasurementofserumhe4forovariancancer AT crosbieemmaj comparisonoftwoimmunoassaysforthemeasurementofserumhe4forovariancancer |