IF 1.3 4区 医学 Q4 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL
Jaime I Sainz de Medrano, Javier Laguna, Judit Julian, Xavier Filella, Aleix Fabregat, María Luquin, Harol H Hurtado, Alba García Humanes, Manuel Morales-Ruiz, Esther Fernández-Galán
{"title":"Comparison of two automated immunoassays for quantifying ProGRP, SCC and HE4 in serum: impact on diagnostic accuracy.","authors":"Jaime I Sainz de Medrano, Javier Laguna, Judit Julian, Xavier Filella, Aleix Fabregat, María Luquin, Harol H Hurtado, Alba García Humanes, Manuel Morales-Ruiz, Esther Fernández-Galán","doi":"10.1080/00365513.2025.2466008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>ProGRP (Progastrin-releasing peptide), SCC (Squamous Cell Carcinoma Antigen), and HE4 (Human epididymis protein 4) are serum tumor markers (STMs) frequently used in clinical practice, particularly for detection and monitoring of ovarian and lung neoplasms. In clinical laboratories, their quantification is commonly performed using automated immunoassays. Nevertheless, variations in results obtained by different immunoassays can impact diagnostic accuracy and effectiveness of patient monitoring. Our aim is to assess differences in STMs concentrations between two automated immunoassays: the Elecsys (Roche) and the Architect (Abbott), which are integrated into the Cobas e402 and Architect i2000SR systems respectively. We included 401 serum samples from patients with different clinical conditions: patients with cancer (<i>n</i> = 170), benign diseases (<i>n</i> = 100) and a control group (<i>n</i> = 131). ProGRP, SCC, and HE4 concentrations were quantified in parallel by both analyzers. To evaluate the clinical impact of changing these methodologies, overall concordance, the kappa index and ROC (Receiver Operating Characteristic) curves were calculated. While some discrepancies were noted in specific cases, overall, we obtained a good correlation for three STMs, with a Pearson coefficient for proGRP (<i>r</i> = 0.99), SCC (<i>r</i> = 0.95) and HE4 (<i>r</i> = 0.973). We also obtained a similar performance in the differential diagnosis of cancer, according to the results of the ROC analyses for Cobas and Archictect assays respectively: proGRP (AUC = 0.92; 0.91), SCC (AUC = 0.90; 0.92) and HE4 (AUC = 0.92; 0.93).</p>","PeriodicalId":21474,"journal":{"name":"Scandinavian Journal of Clinical & Laboratory Investigation","volume":" ","pages":"116-124"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scandinavian Journal of Clinical & Laboratory Investigation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00365513.2025.2466008","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/15 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

ProGRP(胃泌素释放肽)、SCC(鳞状细胞癌抗原)和 HE4(人附睾蛋白 4)是临床上常用的血清肿瘤标志物(STMs),尤其是用于检测和监测卵巢和肺部肿瘤。临床实验室通常使用自动免疫测定法对其进行定量。然而,不同免疫测定方法得出的结果存在差异,会影响诊断的准确性和患者监测的有效性。我们的目的是评估两种自动免疫测定法之间 STMs 浓度的差异:Elecsys(罗氏)和 Architect(雅培),它们分别集成在 Cobas e402 和 Architect i2000SR 系统中。我们纳入了 401 份血清样本,这些样本来自不同临床状况的患者:癌症患者(n = 170)、良性疾病患者(n = 100)和对照组(n = 131)。两种分析仪同时对 ProGRP、SCC 和 HE4 的浓度进行量化。为了评估改变这些方法的临床影响,计算了总体一致性、卡帕指数和 ROC(接收者工作特征)曲线。虽然在特定病例中发现了一些差异,但总体而言,我们在三种 STM 中获得了良好的相关性,proGRP(r = 0.99)、SCC(r = 0.95)和 HE4(r = 0.973)的皮尔逊系数。根据 Cobas 和 Archictect 检测的 ROC 分析结果,我们在癌症的鉴别诊断中也获得了类似的性能:proGRP(AUC = 0.92;0.91)、SCC(AUC = 0.90;0.92)和 HE4(AUC = 0.92;0.93)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparison of two automated immunoassays for quantifying ProGRP, SCC and HE4 in serum: impact on diagnostic accuracy.

ProGRP (Progastrin-releasing peptide), SCC (Squamous Cell Carcinoma Antigen), and HE4 (Human epididymis protein 4) are serum tumor markers (STMs) frequently used in clinical practice, particularly for detection and monitoring of ovarian and lung neoplasms. In clinical laboratories, their quantification is commonly performed using automated immunoassays. Nevertheless, variations in results obtained by different immunoassays can impact diagnostic accuracy and effectiveness of patient monitoring. Our aim is to assess differences in STMs concentrations between two automated immunoassays: the Elecsys (Roche) and the Architect (Abbott), which are integrated into the Cobas e402 and Architect i2000SR systems respectively. We included 401 serum samples from patients with different clinical conditions: patients with cancer (n = 170), benign diseases (n = 100) and a control group (n = 131). ProGRP, SCC, and HE4 concentrations were quantified in parallel by both analyzers. To evaluate the clinical impact of changing these methodologies, overall concordance, the kappa index and ROC (Receiver Operating Characteristic) curves were calculated. While some discrepancies were noted in specific cases, overall, we obtained a good correlation for three STMs, with a Pearson coefficient for proGRP (r = 0.99), SCC (r = 0.95) and HE4 (r = 0.973). We also obtained a similar performance in the differential diagnosis of cancer, according to the results of the ROC analyses for Cobas and Archictect assays respectively: proGRP (AUC = 0.92; 0.91), SCC (AUC = 0.90; 0.92) and HE4 (AUC = 0.92; 0.93).

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
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
4.80%
发文量
85
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Scandinavian Journal of Clinical and Laboratory Investigation is an international scientific journal covering clinically oriented biochemical and physiological research. Since the launch of the journal in 1949, it has been a forum for international laboratory medicine, closely related to, and edited by, The Scandinavian Society for Clinical Chemistry. The journal contains peer-reviewed articles, editorials, invited reviews, and short technical notes, as well as several supplements each year. Supplements consist of monographs, and symposium and congress reports covering subjects within clinical chemistry and clinical physiology.
×
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