Comparison of a CEA-EIA assay based on monoclonal antibody with a CEA-RIA assay with polyclonal antiserum.

NIPH annals Pub Date : 1985-06-01
H Orjasaeter, H J Staab, H E Heier, A Hornung, K Kjørstad, E Luedin, T O Rognum, H Bell
{"title":"Comparison of a CEA-EIA assay based on monoclonal antibody with a CEA-RIA assay with polyclonal antiserum.","authors":"H Orjasaeter,&nbsp;H J Staab,&nbsp;H E Heier,&nbsp;A Hornung,&nbsp;K Kjørstad,&nbsp;E Luedin,&nbsp;T O Rognum,&nbsp;H Bell","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>A monoclonal CEA-EIA assay is evaluated with respect to clinically pertinent data. Comparison is done with the conventional CEA-RIA assay (Roche). Good interlaboratory reproducibility was found, and the stability was very good over the one year evaluation period. The EIA assay could be performed in samples of serum and plasma with compatible results. The correlation between the EIA and RIA values was different in different diagnostic groups, with high correlation in colo-rectal cancer, and low in non-malignant diseases, in which the EIA assay had a lower frequency of CEA positive values. In colo-rectal cancer the RIA assay shows a 20% specificity improvement compared with the EIA assay. This was also reflected in better predictability for true positive and true negative cancer diagnosis in this group of patients as well as increased ability to discriminate between malignant and non-malignant diseases. In other groups of patients, like lung cancer and uterine cervical cancer, such improvement was not seen. The discrimination between malignant and non-malignant diseases was comparable to that of the RIA assay. In follow-up series the EIA and RIA assays detected recurrences and responses to treatment in a quite similar way. In most cases of recurrences from colo-rectal cancer, however, the EIA values increased faster and were a better indicator for recurrent disease than the RIA values.</p>","PeriodicalId":76239,"journal":{"name":"NIPH annals","volume":"8 1","pages":"13-26"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1985-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"NIPH annals","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

A monoclonal CEA-EIA assay is evaluated with respect to clinically pertinent data. Comparison is done with the conventional CEA-RIA assay (Roche). Good interlaboratory reproducibility was found, and the stability was very good over the one year evaluation period. The EIA assay could be performed in samples of serum and plasma with compatible results. The correlation between the EIA and RIA values was different in different diagnostic groups, with high correlation in colo-rectal cancer, and low in non-malignant diseases, in which the EIA assay had a lower frequency of CEA positive values. In colo-rectal cancer the RIA assay shows a 20% specificity improvement compared with the EIA assay. This was also reflected in better predictability for true positive and true negative cancer diagnosis in this group of patients as well as increased ability to discriminate between malignant and non-malignant diseases. In other groups of patients, like lung cancer and uterine cervical cancer, such improvement was not seen. The discrimination between malignant and non-malignant diseases was comparable to that of the RIA assay. In follow-up series the EIA and RIA assays detected recurrences and responses to treatment in a quite similar way. In most cases of recurrences from colo-rectal cancer, however, the EIA values increased faster and were a better indicator for recurrent disease than the RIA values.

单克隆抗体CEA-EIA检测与多克隆抗血清CEA-RIA检测的比较
单克隆CEA-EIA测定是评估相对于临床相关数据。与常规CEA-RIA分析(罗氏)进行比较。结果表明,该方法具有良好的实验室间重复性,在一年的评价期内稳定性良好。EIA试验可在血清和血浆样品中进行,结果一致。不同诊断组EIA与RIA的相关性不同,在结直肠癌中相关性较高,在非恶性疾病中相关性较低,其中EIA检测CEA阳性的频率较低。在结直肠癌中,RIA检测比EIA检测的特异性提高了20%。这也反映在这组患者对真阳性和真阴性癌症诊断的可预测性更好,以及区分恶性和非恶性疾病的能力增强。在其他患者群体中,如肺癌和子宫颈癌,则没有这种改善。对恶性和非恶性疾病的区分与RIA试验相当。在后续系列中,EIA和RIA检测以非常相似的方式检测复发和对治疗的反应。然而,在大多数结直肠癌复发病例中,EIA值增加得更快,并且比RIA值更好地指示疾病复发。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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