{"title":"Clinical utility of personalized reference intervals for CEA in the early detection of oncologic disease.","authors":"Débora Martínez-Espartosa, Estíbaliz Alegre, Hugo Casero-Ramírez, Jorge Díaz-Garzón, Pilar Fernández-Calle, Patricia Fuentes-Bullejos, Nerea Varo, Álvaro González","doi":"10.1515/cclm-2024-0546","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Personalized reference intervals (prRI) have been proposed as a diagnostic tool for assessing measurands with high individuality. Here, we evaluate clinical performance of prRI using carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) for cancer detection and compare it with that of reference change values (RCV) and other criteria recommended by clinical guidelines (e.g. 25 % of change between consecutive CEA results (RV25) and the cut-off point of 5 μg/L (CP5)).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Clinical and analytical data from 2,638 patients collected over 19 years were retrospectively evaluated. A total 15,485 CEA results were studied. For each patient, we calculated prRI and RCV using computer algorithms based on the combination of different strategies to assess the number of CEA results needed, consideration of one or two limits of reference interval and the intraindividual biological variation estimate (CV<sub>I</sub>) used: (a) publicly available (CV<sub>I-EU</sub>), (b) CV<sub>I</sub> calculated using an indirect method (CV<sub>I-NOO</sub>) and (c) within-person BV (CV<sub>P</sub>). For each new result identified falling outside the prRI, exceeding the RCV interval, RV25 or CP5, we searched for records identifying the presence of tumour at 3 and 12 months after the test. The sensitivity, specificity and predictive power of each strategy were calculated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>PrRI approaches derived using CV<sub>I-EU</sub>, and both limits of reference interval achieve the best sensitivity (87.5 %) and NPV (99.3 %) at 3 and 12 months of all evaluated criteria. Only 3 results per patients are enough to calculate prRIs that reach this diagnostic performance.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>PrRI approaches could be an effective tool to rule out new oncological findings during the active surveillance of patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":10390,"journal":{"name":"Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2024-0546","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objectives: Personalized reference intervals (prRI) have been proposed as a diagnostic tool for assessing measurands with high individuality. Here, we evaluate clinical performance of prRI using carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) for cancer detection and compare it with that of reference change values (RCV) and other criteria recommended by clinical guidelines (e.g. 25 % of change between consecutive CEA results (RV25) and the cut-off point of 5 μg/L (CP5)).
Methods: Clinical and analytical data from 2,638 patients collected over 19 years were retrospectively evaluated. A total 15,485 CEA results were studied. For each patient, we calculated prRI and RCV using computer algorithms based on the combination of different strategies to assess the number of CEA results needed, consideration of one or two limits of reference interval and the intraindividual biological variation estimate (CVI) used: (a) publicly available (CVI-EU), (b) CVI calculated using an indirect method (CVI-NOO) and (c) within-person BV (CVP). For each new result identified falling outside the prRI, exceeding the RCV interval, RV25 or CP5, we searched for records identifying the presence of tumour at 3 and 12 months after the test. The sensitivity, specificity and predictive power of each strategy were calculated.
Results: PrRI approaches derived using CVI-EU, and both limits of reference interval achieve the best sensitivity (87.5 %) and NPV (99.3 %) at 3 and 12 months of all evaluated criteria. Only 3 results per patients are enough to calculate prRIs that reach this diagnostic performance.
Conclusions: PrRI approaches could be an effective tool to rule out new oncological findings during the active surveillance of patients.
期刊介绍:
Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM) publishes articles on novel teaching and training methods applicable to laboratory medicine. CCLM welcomes contributions on the progress in fundamental and applied research and cutting-edge clinical laboratory medicine. It is one of the leading journals in the field, with an impact factor over 3. CCLM is issued monthly, and it is published in print and electronically.
CCLM is the official journal of the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) and publishes regularly EFLM recommendations and news. CCLM is the official journal of the National Societies from Austria (ÖGLMKC); Belgium (RBSLM); Germany (DGKL); Hungary (MLDT); Ireland (ACBI); Italy (SIBioC); Portugal (SPML); and Slovenia (SZKK); and it is affiliated to AACB (Australia) and SFBC (France).
Topics:
- clinical biochemistry
- clinical genomics and molecular biology
- clinical haematology and coagulation
- clinical immunology and autoimmunity
- clinical microbiology
- drug monitoring and analysis
- evaluation of diagnostic biomarkers
- disease-oriented topics (cardiovascular disease, cancer diagnostics, diabetes)
- new reagents, instrumentation and technologies
- new methodologies
- reference materials and methods
- reference values and decision limits
- quality and safety in laboratory medicine
- translational laboratory medicine
- clinical metrology
Follow @cclm_degruyter on Twitter!