癌胚抗原(CEA)测定:两种不同测定方法的比较。

H Orjasaeter
{"title":"癌胚抗原(CEA)测定:两种不同测定方法的比较。","authors":"H Orjasaeter","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>A comparison was made of CEA determination by the CEA-RIAKIT and our slightly modified CEA-Roche assays. The normal levels (mean + 2 SD) found in 63 blood donors were 2.3 microgram/1 and 3.3 microgram/1, respectively. The inter-assay reproducibility was similar in the range below 15 microgram/1, with variations from 0.3 microgram/1 (1 SD, less than 5 microgram/1) to 1.4 microgram/1 (1 SD, 10--15 microgram/1). Both methods measured CEA concentrations down to 1 microgram/1. The ability of the two assays to discriminate between positive and negative values in patients with urogenital and gastrointestinal cancer was similar. The response to recurrences of colorectal carcinoma was also similar, and the CEA fluctuation was parallel after surgery. The CEA-Roche assay generally showed good correlation between measured and theoretical values at both low and high levels. Under our test conditions, the disparity between indirect and direct values was 14 microgram/1 +/- 8 (n = 4) in the range 18--32 microgram/1, and this must be taken into consideration in interpreting the CEA-Roche test. The CEA-RIAKIT measured too low values as compared to both the CEA-Roche and the theoretical values. The discrepancy increased with increasing CEA values, and the ability to distinguish between high CEA concentrations (greater than 15 microgram/1) was poor. The explanation seems to be that the anti-CEA sera used in this assay show a lower affinity for plasma CEA than for tumour-extracted CEA. Immunochemical differences between sample CEA and CEA used for calibration of the standard curves must be considered in evaluation of CEA assays.</p>","PeriodicalId":75411,"journal":{"name":"Acta pathologica et microbiologica Scandinavica. Section C, Immunology","volume":"86C 6","pages":"265-75"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1978-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Determination of carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA): comparison of two different assays.\",\"authors\":\"H Orjasaeter\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>A comparison was made of CEA determination by the CEA-RIAKIT and our slightly modified CEA-Roche assays. The normal levels (mean + 2 SD) found in 63 blood donors were 2.3 microgram/1 and 3.3 microgram/1, respectively. The inter-assay reproducibility was similar in the range below 15 microgram/1, with variations from 0.3 microgram/1 (1 SD, less than 5 microgram/1) to 1.4 microgram/1 (1 SD, 10--15 microgram/1). Both methods measured CEA concentrations down to 1 microgram/1. The ability of the two assays to discriminate between positive and negative values in patients with urogenital and gastrointestinal cancer was similar. The response to recurrences of colorectal carcinoma was also similar, and the CEA fluctuation was parallel after surgery. The CEA-Roche assay generally showed good correlation between measured and theoretical values at both low and high levels. Under our test conditions, the disparity between indirect and direct values was 14 microgram/1 +/- 8 (n = 4) in the range 18--32 microgram/1, and this must be taken into consideration in interpreting the CEA-Roche test. The CEA-RIAKIT measured too low values as compared to both the CEA-Roche and the theoretical values. The discrepancy increased with increasing CEA values, and the ability to distinguish between high CEA concentrations (greater than 15 microgram/1) was poor. The explanation seems to be that the anti-CEA sera used in this assay show a lower affinity for plasma CEA than for tumour-extracted CEA. Immunochemical differences between sample CEA and CEA used for calibration of the standard curves must be considered in evaluation of CEA assays.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":75411,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Acta pathologica et microbiologica Scandinavica. Section C, Immunology\",\"volume\":\"86C 6\",\"pages\":\"265-75\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1978-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Acta pathologica et microbiologica Scandinavica. Section C, Immunology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta pathologica et microbiologica Scandinavica. Section C, Immunology","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

摘要

比较CEA- riakit测定CEA和我们稍作修改的CEA- roche测定法。63名献血者的正常水平(平均+ 2 SD)分别为2.3微克/1和3.3微克/1。在低于15微克/1的范围内,试验间的重现性相似,从0.3微克/1 (1 SD,小于5微克/1)到1.4微克/1 (1 SD, 10- 15微克/1)不等。两种方法测定的CEA浓度均降至1微克/1。这两种检测在泌尿生殖系统癌和胃肠道癌患者中区分阳性和阴性值的能力是相似的。对结直肠癌复发的反应也相似,术后CEA波动也相似。CEA-Roche测定法在低水平和高水平的测量值和理论值之间普遍显示出良好的相关性。在我们的测试条件下,在18- 32微克/1范围内,间接值和直接值之间的差异为14微克/1 +/- 8 (n = 4),在解释CEA-Roche测试时必须考虑到这一点。与CEA-Roche和理论值相比,CEA-RIAKIT测量的值过低。差异随着CEA值的增加而增加,并且区分高CEA浓度(大于15微克/1)的能力较差。解释似乎是,在这个实验中使用的抗CEA血清对血浆CEA的亲和力低于对肿瘤提取CEA的亲和力。用于标准曲线校准的CEA样品和CEA之间的免疫化学差异必须在CEA测定的评估中加以考虑。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Determination of carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA): comparison of two different assays.

A comparison was made of CEA determination by the CEA-RIAKIT and our slightly modified CEA-Roche assays. The normal levels (mean + 2 SD) found in 63 blood donors were 2.3 microgram/1 and 3.3 microgram/1, respectively. The inter-assay reproducibility was similar in the range below 15 microgram/1, with variations from 0.3 microgram/1 (1 SD, less than 5 microgram/1) to 1.4 microgram/1 (1 SD, 10--15 microgram/1). Both methods measured CEA concentrations down to 1 microgram/1. The ability of the two assays to discriminate between positive and negative values in patients with urogenital and gastrointestinal cancer was similar. The response to recurrences of colorectal carcinoma was also similar, and the CEA fluctuation was parallel after surgery. The CEA-Roche assay generally showed good correlation between measured and theoretical values at both low and high levels. Under our test conditions, the disparity between indirect and direct values was 14 microgram/1 +/- 8 (n = 4) in the range 18--32 microgram/1, and this must be taken into consideration in interpreting the CEA-Roche test. The CEA-RIAKIT measured too low values as compared to both the CEA-Roche and the theoretical values. The discrepancy increased with increasing CEA values, and the ability to distinguish between high CEA concentrations (greater than 15 microgram/1) was poor. The explanation seems to be that the anti-CEA sera used in this assay show a lower affinity for plasma CEA than for tumour-extracted CEA. Immunochemical differences between sample CEA and CEA used for calibration of the standard curves must be considered in evaluation of CEA assays.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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