How low can we (reliably) go? A method comparison of thyroid-stimulating hormone assays with a focus on low concentrations.

IF 3.5 2区 医学 Q2 ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM
European Thyroid Journal Pub Date : 2023-09-14 Print Date: 2023-10-01 DOI:10.1530/ETJ-23-0123
Stan R Ursem, Anita Boelen, Jacquelien J Hillebrand, Wendy P J den Elzen, Annemieke C Heijboer
{"title":"How low can we (reliably) go? A method comparison of thyroid-stimulating hormone assays with a focus on low concentrations.","authors":"Stan R Ursem, Anita Boelen, Jacquelien J Hillebrand, Wendy P J den Elzen, Annemieke C Heijboer","doi":"10.1530/ETJ-23-0123","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>International guidelines concerning subclinical hyperthyroidism and thyroid cancer advice absolute cut-off values for aiding clinical decisions in the low range of thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) concentrations. As TSH assays are known to be poorly standardized in the normal to high range, we performed a TSH assay method comparison focusing on the low range.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Sixty samples, selected to cover a wide range of TSH concentrations (<0.01 to 120 mIU/L) with oversampling in the lower range (<0.4 mIU/L), were used for the method comparison between three TSH immunoassays (Cobas, Alinity and Atellica). In addition, 20 samples were used to assess the coefficient of variation from duplicate measurements in these three methods.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The TSH immunoassays showed standardization differences with a bias of 7-16% for the total range and 1-14% for the low range. This could lead to a different classification of 1.5% of all measured TSH concentrations <0.40 mIU/L measured in our laboratory over the last 6 months, regarding the clinically important cut-off value of TSH = 0.1 mIU/L. As the imprecision of the immunoassays varied from 1.6-5.5%, this could lead to a similar reclassification as the bias between immunoassays.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We established the standardization differences of frequently used TSH assays for the total and low concentration ranges. Based on the proportional bias and the imprecision, this effect seems to have limited clinical consequences for the low TSH concentration range. Nevertheless, as guidelines mention absolute TSH values to guide clinical decision-making, caution must be applied when interpreting values close to these cut-offs.</p>","PeriodicalId":12159,"journal":{"name":"European Thyroid Journal","volume":"12 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/40/a7/ETJ-23-0123.PMC10503215.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Thyroid Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1530/ETJ-23-0123","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/10/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"Print","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: International guidelines concerning subclinical hyperthyroidism and thyroid cancer advice absolute cut-off values for aiding clinical decisions in the low range of thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) concentrations. As TSH assays are known to be poorly standardized in the normal to high range, we performed a TSH assay method comparison focusing on the low range.

Methods: Sixty samples, selected to cover a wide range of TSH concentrations (<0.01 to 120 mIU/L) with oversampling in the lower range (<0.4 mIU/L), were used for the method comparison between three TSH immunoassays (Cobas, Alinity and Atellica). In addition, 20 samples were used to assess the coefficient of variation from duplicate measurements in these three methods.

Results: The TSH immunoassays showed standardization differences with a bias of 7-16% for the total range and 1-14% for the low range. This could lead to a different classification of 1.5% of all measured TSH concentrations <0.40 mIU/L measured in our laboratory over the last 6 months, regarding the clinically important cut-off value of TSH = 0.1 mIU/L. As the imprecision of the immunoassays varied from 1.6-5.5%, this could lead to a similar reclassification as the bias between immunoassays.

Conclusions: We established the standardization differences of frequently used TSH assays for the total and low concentration ranges. Based on the proportional bias and the imprecision, this effect seems to have limited clinical consequences for the low TSH concentration range. Nevertheless, as guidelines mention absolute TSH values to guide clinical decision-making, caution must be applied when interpreting values close to these cut-offs.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

我们能(可靠地)降到多低?以低浓度为重点的促甲状腺激素测定的方法比较。
目的:关于亚临床甲状腺功能亢进症和甲状腺癌症的国际指南建议在甲状腺刺激激素(TSH)低浓度范围内的绝对临界值,以帮助临床决策。由于已知TSH测定在正常到高范围内标准化较差,我们对低范围TSH测定方法进行了比较。方法:60例,选择以覆盖广泛的TSH浓度(结果:TSH免疫测定显示标准化差异,总范围偏差为7-16%,低范围偏差为1-14%。这可能导致所有测量TSH浓度的1.5%的不同分类。结论:我们确定了常用TSH测定在总浓度和低浓度范围的标准化差异遗憾的是,这种影响似乎对低TSH浓度范围的临床后果有限。然而,由于指南提到TSH绝对值来指导临床决策,在解释接近这些临界值的值时必须谨慎。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
European Thyroid Journal
European Thyroid Journal Medicine-Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism
CiteScore
6.70
自引率
2.10%
发文量
156
期刊介绍: The ''European Thyroid Journal'' publishes papers reporting original research in basic, translational and clinical thyroidology. Original contributions cover all aspects of the field, from molecular and cellular biology to immunology and biochemistry, from physiology to pathology, and from pediatric to adult thyroid diseases with a special focus on thyroid cancer. Readers also benefit from reviews by noted experts, which highlight especially active areas of current research. The journal will further publish formal guidelines in the field, produced and endorsed by the European Thyroid Association.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信