参考区间过低导致催乳素水平解读混乱。

IF 2.6 3区 医学 Q3 ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM
Endocrine Connections Pub Date : 2024-11-21 Print Date: 2024-12-01 DOI:10.1530/EC-24-0432
Yanaika S Sabogal Piñeros, Martine M L Deckers, Prim de Bie, Annemieke C Heijboer, Jacquelien J Hillebrand
{"title":"参考区间过低导致催乳素水平解读混乱。","authors":"Yanaika S Sabogal Piñeros, Martine M L Deckers, Prim de Bie, Annemieke C Heijboer, Jacquelien J Hillebrand","doi":"10.1530/EC-24-0432","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Serum prolactin measurements are important in the differential diagnosis of pituitary masses and subfertility. We observed discrepancies in serum prolactin levels in several patients measured with different immunoassays. Despite differences in assay results, the reference intervals (RIs) derived by the manufacturers were similar. In this study, we aimed to investigate prolactin assay differences and to re-establish RIs for different prolactin immunoassays.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>For the assay comparison, serum samples were collected from men and women visiting the Amsterdam UMC hospital. Prolactin levels were measured using the AtellicaTM IM analyzer (Siemens Healthineers) and the Cobas (Roche Diagnostics) immunoassay. RIs for prolactin were re-established for men, premenopausal women, and postmenopausal women for both the Atellica and Cobas immunoassay.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Prolactin levels measured using the Cobas immunoassay were 1.75 times higher than those measured using the Atellica immunoassay. The re-established RIs for Atellica and Cobas confirmed these findings and were <0.32 U/L; <0.55 U/L for men; <0.64 U/L; <0.86 U/L for premenopausal women, and <0.31 U/L; <0.59 U/L for postmenopausal women, respectively, for Atellica and Cobas assays. The re-established RIs of the Atellica assay matched the current and manufacturer RIs, whereas those for Cobas differed substantially.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Prolactin levels are assay-dependent, and the re-established RIs are different for the Atellica and Cobas assays. We recommend that laboratory specialists and manufacturers periodically review prolactin assay RIs, as incorrect RIs can lead to misinterpretation of prolactin levels and unnecessary referrals and further laboratory testing, as we have experienced.</p><p><strong>Plain language summary: </strong>We showed that the results of different prolactin tests disagree by 75%, which hinders correct interpretation. Thus, we established test-specific prolactin normal values. By being aware of test differences and using test-specific normal values, one can ensure correct interpretation and prevent unnecessary referrals and concern.</p>","PeriodicalId":11634,"journal":{"name":"Endocrine Connections","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Confusion in the interpretation of prolactin levels caused by inappropriately low reference intervals.\",\"authors\":\"Yanaika S Sabogal Piñeros, Martine M L Deckers, Prim de Bie, Annemieke C Heijboer, Jacquelien J Hillebrand\",\"doi\":\"10.1530/EC-24-0432\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Serum prolactin measurements are important in the differential diagnosis of pituitary masses and subfertility. We observed discrepancies in serum prolactin levels in several patients measured with different immunoassays. Despite differences in assay results, the reference intervals (RIs) derived by the manufacturers were similar. In this study, we aimed to investigate prolactin assay differences and to re-establish RIs for different prolactin immunoassays.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>For the assay comparison, serum samples were collected from men and women visiting the Amsterdam UMC hospital. Prolactin levels were measured using the AtellicaTM IM analyzer (Siemens Healthineers) and the Cobas (Roche Diagnostics) immunoassay. RIs for prolactin were re-established for men, premenopausal women, and postmenopausal women for both the Atellica and Cobas immunoassay.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Prolactin levels measured using the Cobas immunoassay were 1.75 times higher than those measured using the Atellica immunoassay. The re-established RIs for Atellica and Cobas confirmed these findings and were <0.32 U/L; <0.55 U/L for men; <0.64 U/L; <0.86 U/L for premenopausal women, and <0.31 U/L; <0.59 U/L for postmenopausal women, respectively, for Atellica and Cobas assays. The re-established RIs of the Atellica assay matched the current and manufacturer RIs, whereas those for Cobas differed substantially.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Prolactin levels are assay-dependent, and the re-established RIs are different for the Atellica and Cobas assays. We recommend that laboratory specialists and manufacturers periodically review prolactin assay RIs, as incorrect RIs can lead to misinterpretation of prolactin levels and unnecessary referrals and further laboratory testing, as we have experienced.</p><p><strong>Plain language summary: </strong>We showed that the results of different prolactin tests disagree by 75%, which hinders correct interpretation. Thus, we established test-specific prolactin normal values. By being aware of test differences and using test-specific normal values, one can ensure correct interpretation and prevent unnecessary referrals and concern.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11634,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Endocrine Connections\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Endocrine Connections\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1530/EC-24-0432\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/12/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Print\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Endocrine Connections","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1530/EC-24-0432","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/12/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"Print","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:血清泌乳素测定在垂体肿块和不孕症的鉴别诊断中非常重要。我们观察到几名患者使用不同的免疫测定法测定的血清泌乳素水平存在差异。尽管检测结果存在差异,但生产商得出的参考区间是相似的。在这项研究中,我们旨在调查催乳素检测方法的差异,并重新确定不同催乳素免疫测定方法的参考区间:为了进行测定比较,我们从阿姆斯特丹 UMC 医院的男性和女性患者中采集了血清样本。使用 AtellicaTM IM 分析仪(西门子 Healthineers)和 Cobas(罗氏诊断)免疫测定法测定催乳素水平。用 Atellica 和 Cobas 免疫测定法重新确定了男性、绝经前女性和绝经后女性的泌乳素参考区间:结果:使用 Cobas 免疫测定法测得的催乳素水平比使用 Atellica 免疫测定法测得的水平高 1.75 倍。重新确定的 Atellica 和 Cobas 参考区间证实了这些结果,并得出结论:催乳素水平与检测方法有关,Atellica 和 Cobas 检测方法重新确定的参考区间不同。我们建议实验室专家和生产商定期审查泌乳素测定的参考区间,因为不正确的参考区间可能会导致对泌乳素水平的误解,造成不必要的转诊和进一步的实验室检测,我们就遇到过这种情况。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Confusion in the interpretation of prolactin levels caused by inappropriately low reference intervals.

Objective: Serum prolactin measurements are important in the differential diagnosis of pituitary masses and subfertility. We observed discrepancies in serum prolactin levels in several patients measured with different immunoassays. Despite differences in assay results, the reference intervals (RIs) derived by the manufacturers were similar. In this study, we aimed to investigate prolactin assay differences and to re-establish RIs for different prolactin immunoassays.

Methods: For the assay comparison, serum samples were collected from men and women visiting the Amsterdam UMC hospital. Prolactin levels were measured using the AtellicaTM IM analyzer (Siemens Healthineers) and the Cobas (Roche Diagnostics) immunoassay. RIs for prolactin were re-established for men, premenopausal women, and postmenopausal women for both the Atellica and Cobas immunoassay.

Results: Prolactin levels measured using the Cobas immunoassay were 1.75 times higher than those measured using the Atellica immunoassay. The re-established RIs for Atellica and Cobas confirmed these findings and were <0.32 U/L; <0.55 U/L for men; <0.64 U/L; <0.86 U/L for premenopausal women, and <0.31 U/L; <0.59 U/L for postmenopausal women, respectively, for Atellica and Cobas assays. The re-established RIs of the Atellica assay matched the current and manufacturer RIs, whereas those for Cobas differed substantially.

Conclusions: Prolactin levels are assay-dependent, and the re-established RIs are different for the Atellica and Cobas assays. We recommend that laboratory specialists and manufacturers periodically review prolactin assay RIs, as incorrect RIs can lead to misinterpretation of prolactin levels and unnecessary referrals and further laboratory testing, as we have experienced.

Plain language summary: We showed that the results of different prolactin tests disagree by 75%, which hinders correct interpretation. Thus, we established test-specific prolactin normal values. By being aware of test differences and using test-specific normal values, one can ensure correct interpretation and prevent unnecessary referrals and concern.

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
Endocrine Connections
Endocrine Connections Medicine-Internal Medicine
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
3.40%
发文量
361
审稿时长
6 weeks
期刊介绍: Endocrine Connections publishes original quality research and reviews in all areas of endocrinology, including papers that deal with non-classical tissues as source or targets of hormones and endocrine papers that have relevance to endocrine-related and intersecting disciplines and the wider biomedical community.
×
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