2 research outputs found
Comparison of two immunoassays for CA19-9, CEA and AFP tumor markers
Get PDFUvod: Monoklonska antitijela koriste se za otkrivanje antigena u serumu koji su povezani sa specifičnim zloćudnim oboljenjima. Ti su tumorski biljezi najkorisniji za praćenje odgovora na terapiju i otkrivanje ranog recidiva, međutim, rezultati dobiveni različitima analizama razlikuju se te promjena metode tijekom praćenja može biti uzrokom problema. Cilj ove studije bio je provesti analitičku evaluaciju usporedivosti analiza za tumorske biljega CA19-9, CEA i AFP na dva različita automatizirana kemijska analizatora.
Materijali i metode: Koncentracije CA19-9, CEA i AFP su određene na ana-lizatorima Vitros ECi (Ortho Clinical Diagnostics, Johnson & Johnson, Buckinghamshire, V. Britanija) i Cobase 411 (Hitachi High Technologies Corporation, Tokyo, Japan). Korelacija među metodama ispitana je na 38 uzoraka seruma za CA19-9 i AFP te 39 uzoraka seruma za CEA.
Rezultati: Vrijednosti komercijalnih kontrolnih uzoraka bile su unutar raspo-na navedenih od proizvođača za sve tumorske biljege uključene u istraživanje na oba analizatora. Najveće odstupanje od deklariranih kontrolnih vrijednosti nađene su za CA19-9 na analizatoru Vitros ECi te za AFP na analizatoru Cobas e411. Visoka je korelacija utvrđena među metodama za sva tri ispitana tumorska biljega (r = 0,978 za CA19-9; r = 0,995 za CEA, te r = 0,999 za AFP). Nagib i odsječ ak na osi Y iznosili su 1, odnosno 0, samo za usporedbenu analizu AFP.
Zaključak: Rezultati istraživanja pokazali su najbolje podudaranje vrijednosti za AFP dobivene na dva ispitana analizatora za imunoanalize. Bez obzira na snažne korelacije, regresija po Passing-Babloku ukazala je na nižu usporedivost dviju imunoanaliza za CEA i CA19-9.
S obzirom da su rezultati studije potvrdili zapažanja iz svakodnevnog rutinskog rada, za svakoga je pacijenta od najveće važnosti da ga se prati primjenom iste imunoanalize i reagensa na istom analizatoru.Introduction: Monoclonal antibodies are used to detect serum antigens associated with specific malignancies. These tumor markers are most useful for monitoring response to therapy and detecting early relapse, but results obtained by different assays vary, and a change of method during follow-up may cause problems. The aim of our study was to perform the analytical evaluation of the inter-assay comparability for tumor markers CA19-9, CEA and AFP on two different automated chemistry analyzers.
Materials and methods: CA19-9, CEA and AFP concentrations, using Vitros ECi (Ortho Clinical Diagnostics, Johnson and Johnson, Buckinghamshire, UK), and Cobas e 411 (Hitachi High Technologies Corporation, Tokyo, Japan) immu-noassay analyzers, were determined. Between-method correlation was studied in 38 serum samples for CA19-9 and AFP and 39 serum samples for CEA.
Results: The values of commercial controls were within the range declared by the manufacturer for all tumor markers included in the study on both analyzers. The highest deviation from the declared control values was found for CA19-9 on Vitros ECi and for AFP on Cobas e411 analyzer. High correlation was found between methods for all of three tumor markers studied (R = 0.978 for CA19-9; R = 0.995 for CEA and R = 0.999 for AFP). Passing-Bablok regression slope and y-axis intercept included 1 and 0 only for AFP comparative assays.
Conclusion: Study results showed the best compliance of values for AFP obtained on two studied immunoassay analyzers. Regardless of high correlations, Passing-Bablok regression indicated lower comparability between two immunoassays for CEA and CA19-9.
As the study results confirmed the observations from daily routine, it is of utmost importance for individual patients to be monitored using the same immunoassay and reagents on the same analyzer
Comparison of two immunoassays for CA19-9, CEA and AFP tumor markers
Get PDFUvod: Monoklonska antitijela koriste se za otkrivanje antigena u serumu koji su povezani sa specifičnim zloćudnim oboljenjima. Ti su tumorski biljezi najkorisniji za praćenje odgovora na terapiju i otkrivanje ranog recidiva, međutim, rezultati dobiveni različitima analizama razlikuju se te promjena metode tijekom praćenja može biti uzrokom problema. Cilj ove studije bio je provesti analitičku evaluaciju usporedivosti analiza za tumorske biljega CA19-9, CEA i AFP na dva različita automatizirana kemijska analizatora.
Materijali i metode: Koncentracije CA19-9, CEA i AFP su određene na ana-lizatorima Vitros ECi (Ortho Clinical Diagnostics, Johnson & Johnson, Buckinghamshire, V. Britanija) i Cobase 411 (Hitachi High Technologies Corporation, Tokyo, Japan). Korelacija među metodama ispitana je na 38 uzoraka seruma za CA19-9 i AFP te 39 uzoraka seruma za CEA.
Rezultati: Vrijednosti komercijalnih kontrolnih uzoraka bile su unutar raspo-na navedenih od proizvođača za sve tumorske biljege uključene u istraživanje na oba analizatora. Najveće odstupanje od deklariranih kontrolnih vrijednosti nađene su za CA19-9 na analizatoru Vitros ECi te za AFP na analizatoru Cobas e411. Visoka je korelacija utvrđena među metodama za sva tri ispitana tumorska biljega (r = 0,978 za CA19-9; r = 0,995 za CEA, te r = 0,999 za AFP). Nagib i odsječ ak na osi Y iznosili su 1, odnosno 0, samo za usporedbenu analizu AFP.
Zaključak: Rezultati istraživanja pokazali su najbolje podudaranje vrijednosti za AFP dobivene na dva ispitana analizatora za imunoanalize. Bez obzira na snažne korelacije, regresija po Passing-Babloku ukazala je na nižu usporedivost dviju imunoanaliza za CEA i CA19-9.
S obzirom da su rezultati studije potvrdili zapažanja iz svakodnevnog rutinskog rada, za svakoga je pacijenta od najveće važnosti da ga se prati primjenom iste imunoanalize i reagensa na istom analizatoru.Introduction: Monoclonal antibodies are used to detect serum antigens associated with specific malignancies. These tumor markers are most useful for monitoring response to therapy and detecting early relapse, but results obtained by different assays vary, and a change of method during follow-up may cause problems. The aim of our study was to perform the analytical evaluation of the inter-assay comparability for tumor markers CA19-9, CEA and AFP on two different automated chemistry analyzers.
Materials and methods: CA19-9, CEA and AFP concentrations, using Vitros ECi (Ortho Clinical Diagnostics, Johnson and Johnson, Buckinghamshire, UK), and Cobas e 411 (Hitachi High Technologies Corporation, Tokyo, Japan) immu-noassay analyzers, were determined. Between-method correlation was studied in 38 serum samples for CA19-9 and AFP and 39 serum samples for CEA.
Results: The values of commercial controls were within the range declared by the manufacturer for all tumor markers included in the study on both analyzers. The highest deviation from the declared control values was found for CA19-9 on Vitros ECi and for AFP on Cobas e411 analyzer. High correlation was found between methods for all of three tumor markers studied (R = 0.978 for CA19-9; R = 0.995 for CEA and R = 0.999 for AFP). Passing-Bablok regression slope and y-axis intercept included 1 and 0 only for AFP comparative assays.
Conclusion: Study results showed the best compliance of values for AFP obtained on two studied immunoassay analyzers. Regardless of high correlations, Passing-Bablok regression indicated lower comparability between two immunoassays for CEA and CA19-9.
As the study results confirmed the observations from daily routine, it is of utmost importance for individual patients to be monitored using the same immunoassay and reagents on the same analyzer
