Comparability of eight immunoassay procedures for the determination of CA 15-3 and related markers

Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine

Volumn 41, Issue 8, 2003, Pages 1087-1094

  Stern, Petr ^a,b   Bartos, Vladimir ^c   Vavrova, Jaroslava ^a,d   Bezdickova, Drahomira ^b   Pechova, Martina ^e   Uhrova, Jana ^b   Friedecky, Bedrich ^d   Sprongl, Ludeck ^a,e   Zima, Tomas ^b   Palicka, Vladimir ^d  

^a Inst for Postgradute Med Education   (Czech Republic)

^b CHARLES UNIVERSITY   (Czech Republic)

^c UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL OSTRAVA   (Czech Republic)

^d UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL HRADEC KRALOVE   (Czech Republic)

^e UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL MOTOL   (Czech Republic)

Author keywords

CA 15 3 immunoassays; Comparability; Heterogeneity; Recovery; Repeatability

Indexed keywords

ANTIBODY; CA 15-3 ANTIGEN; MUCIN; TUMOR MARKER;

ANALYTIC METHOD; ARTICLE; AUTOMATION; BREAST CANCER; CALIBRATION; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC KIT; HUMAN; IMMUNOASSAY; PLOTS AND CURVES; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROTEIN BLOOD LEVEL; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; REPRODUCIBILITY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STATISTICAL PARAMETERS;

CA-15-3 ANTIGEN; CALIBRATION; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; HUMANS; IMMUNOASSAY; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 10744230716     PISSN: 14346621     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1515/CCLM.2003.168     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. van Kamp GJ, Bon GG, Verstraeten RA, Lynch D, Krikau M, Flückinger J, et al. Multicenter evaluation of the Abbott IMx® CA 15-3™ assay. Clin Chem 1996; 42:28-33.
2. van Dalen A. Analytical requirements and standardization of CA 15-3. Scand J Clin Lab Invest 1995; 55 Suppl. 221: 102-4.
3. Shostek D, Maimonis P, Girard A, Brasier J, Peterson J. An immunoassay for breast cancer antigen on the Ciba Corning ACS:180® Automated Chemiluminiscence System. Clin Biochem Rev 1993; 14:324.
4. Murray A, Willsher P, Price MR, Dixon AR, Robertson JFR. Evaluation of the IMMULITE® BR-MA and CEA assays and comparison with immunoradiometric assays for CA 15-3 and CEA in breast cancer. Anticancer Res 1997; 17:1945-9.
5. Bruns DE, Huth EJ, Magid E, Young DS. Toward a checklist for reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy of medical tests. Clin Chem 2000; 46:893-5.
6. Passing H, Bablok W. A new biometrical procedure for testing the equality of measurements from two different analytical methods. Application of linear regression procedures for method comparison studies in clinical chemistry, Part I. J Clin Chem Clin Biochem 1983; 21:709-20.
7. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986; 1:307-10.
8. Pilo A, Zucchelli GC, Cohen R, Bizzolon CA, Cappelli G, Cianetti A, et al. Comparison of immunoassays for tumor markers CA 19-9, CA 15-3 and CA 125: data from an international quality assessment scheme. Tumori 1995; 81: 117-24.
9. Bon GG, Mensdorff-Pouilly S, Kenemans P, van Kamp GJ, Verstraeten RA, Hilgers J, et al. Clinical and technical evaluation of ACS™BR serum assay of MUC1 gene-derived glycoprotein in breast cancer, and comparison with CA 15-3 assays. Clin Chem 1997; 43:585-93.
10. Štern P, Friedecký B. Reliability of the immunoassay measurement of tumor markers. J Tumor Marker Oncology 1999; 14:29-36.
11. Guarner J, Valdivieso E, Quintana A, Frias M, Ramirez T. CA 15.3 in breast cancer: comparison of two assays and validation in a Mexican population. Arch Med Res 1997; 28:523-6.
12. Bauer T, Sreemathi C, Sturm G. Comparison of the test methods (KRYPTOR, ES 600 and CIS-RIA) for CEA, CA 15-3 and CA 125 follow-up and ONCOCHECK-quality control. Anticancer Research 2000; 20:5245-8.
13. Cheli CD, Morris DL, Kish L, Goldblatt J, Neaman I, Allard WJ, et al. Multicenter evaluation of the Bayer Immuno I™ CA 15-3™ assay. Clin Chem 1998; 44:765-72.
14. Huber PR, Bischof P, Kretschmer R, Truschning M, Halwachs G, Schmidt M. CA 15-3: a multicentre evaluation of automated and manual tests. Eur J Clin Chem Clin Biochem 1996; 34:77-84.
15. Römer M, Haeckel R, Brux B, Sinha P, Raiko I, Krieg M, et al. A multicentre evaluation of the CA 15-3 assay, CA 19-9 assay and CA 125 II assay on the Bayer Immuno I® system. Eur J Clin Chem Clin Biochem 1997; 35:637-44.
16. Dybkaer R. European symposium on clinical laboratory and in vitro diagnostics industry. Clin Chem Lab Med 2001; 39:462-3.
17. Dai J, Allard WJ, Davis G, Yeung KK. Effect of desialylation on binding, affinity, and specifity of 56 monoclonal antibodies against MUC1 mucin. Tumor Biol 1998; 19(Suppl 1): 100-10.
18. Stern P, Friedecky B, Bartos V, Bezdickova D, Vavrova J, Uhrova J, et al. Comparison of different immunoassays for CA 19-9. Clin Chem Lab Mad 2001; 39:1278-82.