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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Barr, Chloe E., Funston, Garth, Mounce, Luke T.A., Pemberton, Phillip W., Howe, Jonathon D., Crosbie, Emma J.
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