Huub H Van Rossum, Stefan Holdenrieder, Yeo-Min Yun, Dina Patel, Marc Thelen, Junghan Song, Nick Unsworth, Katherine Partridge, Melanie Moore, Wei Cui, Lakshmi Ramanathan, Qing H Meng, Bart E P B Ballieux, Catharine Sturgeon, Hubert Vesper
{"title":"基于外部质量评估的肿瘤标志物协调模拟;CA 15-3 和 CEA 可实现协调的启示。","authors":"Huub H Van Rossum, Stefan Holdenrieder, Yeo-Min Yun, Dina Patel, Marc Thelen, Junghan Song, Nick Unsworth, Katherine Partridge, Melanie Moore, Wei Cui, Lakshmi Ramanathan, Qing H Meng, Bart E P B Ballieux, Catharine Sturgeon, Hubert Vesper","doi":"10.1515/cclm-2024-0696","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>CA 15-3 and CEA are tumor markers used in routine clinical care for breast cancer and colorectal cancer, among others. Current measurement procedures (MP) for these tumor markers are considered to be insufficiently harmonized. This study investigated the achievable harmonization for CA 15-3 and CEA by using an <i>in silico</i> simulation of external quality assessment (EQA) data from multiple EQA programs using patient-pool based samples.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>CA 15-3 and CEA data from SKML (2021), UK NEQAS (2020-2021) and KEQAS (2020-2021) were used. A harmonization protocol was defined in which MPs that were considered equivalent were used to value assign EQA samples, and recalibration was only required if the MP had a bias of >5 % with value assigned EQA. Harmonization status was assessed by determining the mean level of agreement and residual variation by CV (%).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Only MPs from Abbott, Beckman, Roche and Siemens were available in all EQA programs. For CA 15-3, recalibration was proposed for Beckman MP only and for CEA, recalibration was proposed for Siemens MP only. When the harmonization procedures were applied, for CA 15-3 the pre-harmonization mean bias range per MP was reduced from -29.28 to 9.86 %, into -0.09-0.12 % after harmonization. For CEA, the mean bias range per MP was reduced from -23.78 to 2.00 % pre-harmonization to -3.13-1.42 % post-harmonization.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The present study suggests that a significant improvement in the harmonization status of CA 15-3 and CEA may be achieved by recalibration of a limited number of MPs.</p>","PeriodicalId":10390,"journal":{"name":"Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"External quality assessment-based tumor marker harmonization simulation; insights in achievable harmonization for CA 15-3 and CEA.\",\"authors\":\"Huub H Van Rossum, Stefan Holdenrieder, Yeo-Min Yun, Dina Patel, Marc Thelen, Junghan Song, Nick Unsworth, Katherine Partridge, Melanie Moore, Wei Cui, Lakshmi Ramanathan, Qing H Meng, Bart E P B Ballieux, Catharine Sturgeon, Hubert Vesper\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/cclm-2024-0696\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>CA 15-3 and CEA are tumor markers used in routine clinical care for breast cancer and colorectal cancer, among others. Current measurement procedures (MP) for these tumor markers are considered to be insufficiently harmonized. This study investigated the achievable harmonization for CA 15-3 and CEA by using an <i>in silico</i> simulation of external quality assessment (EQA) data from multiple EQA programs using patient-pool based samples.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>CA 15-3 and CEA data from SKML (2021), UK NEQAS (2020-2021) and KEQAS (2020-2021) were used. A harmonization protocol was defined in which MPs that were considered equivalent were used to value assign EQA samples, and recalibration was only required if the MP had a bias of >5 % with value assigned EQA. Harmonization status was assessed by determining the mean level of agreement and residual variation by CV (%).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Only MPs from Abbott, Beckman, Roche and Siemens were available in all EQA programs. For CA 15-3, recalibration was proposed for Beckman MP only and for CEA, recalibration was proposed for Siemens MP only. When the harmonization procedures were applied, for CA 15-3 the pre-harmonization mean bias range per MP was reduced from -29.28 to 9.86 %, into -0.09-0.12 % after harmonization. For CEA, the mean bias range per MP was reduced from -23.78 to 2.00 % pre-harmonization to -3.13-1.42 % post-harmonization.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The present study suggests that a significant improvement in the harmonization status of CA 15-3 and CEA may be achieved by recalibration of a limited number of MPs.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10390,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-20\",\"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-2024-0696\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2024-0696","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
摘要
目的:CA 15-3 和 CEA 是用于乳腺癌和结直肠癌等常规临床治疗的肿瘤标志物。目前这些肿瘤标志物的测量程序(MP)被认为不够统一。本研究通过对多个 EQA 项目的外部质量评估 (EQA) 数据进行硅模拟,使用基于患者库的样本,研究了 CA 15-3 和 CEA 可实现的协调性:方法:使用来自 SKML(2021 年)、UK NEQAS(2020-2021 年)和 KEQAS(2020-2021 年)的 CA 15-3 和 CEA 数据。定义了一个协调协议,其中被认为等效的 MP 用于对 EQA 样品进行赋值,只有当 MP 与赋值 EQA 的偏差大于 5 % 时才需要重新校准。通过确定平均一致水平和以 CV (%) 表示的残差来评估协调状态:所有 EQA 程序中只有雅培、贝克曼、罗氏和西门子的 MP 可用。对于 CA 15-3,仅建议对贝克曼 MP 进行重新校准;对于 CEA,仅建议对西门子 MP 进行重新校准。应用协调程序后,对于 CA 15-3,协调前每个 MP 的平均偏差范围从 -29.28% 降至 9.86%,协调后降至 -0.09-0.12%。对于 CEA,每个 MP 的平均偏差范围从协调前的 -23.78% 到 2.00%,减少到协调后的 -3.13% 到 1.42%:本研究表明,通过对有限数量的 MP 进行重新校准,可显著改善 CA 15-3 和 CEA 的协调状态。
External quality assessment-based tumor marker harmonization simulation; insights in achievable harmonization for CA 15-3 and CEA.
Objectives: CA 15-3 and CEA are tumor markers used in routine clinical care for breast cancer and colorectal cancer, among others. Current measurement procedures (MP) for these tumor markers are considered to be insufficiently harmonized. This study investigated the achievable harmonization for CA 15-3 and CEA by using an in silico simulation of external quality assessment (EQA) data from multiple EQA programs using patient-pool based samples.
Methods: CA 15-3 and CEA data from SKML (2021), UK NEQAS (2020-2021) and KEQAS (2020-2021) were used. A harmonization protocol was defined in which MPs that were considered equivalent were used to value assign EQA samples, and recalibration was only required if the MP had a bias of >5 % with value assigned EQA. Harmonization status was assessed by determining the mean level of agreement and residual variation by CV (%).
Results: Only MPs from Abbott, Beckman, Roche and Siemens were available in all EQA programs. For CA 15-3, recalibration was proposed for Beckman MP only and for CEA, recalibration was proposed for Siemens MP only. When the harmonization procedures were applied, for CA 15-3 the pre-harmonization mean bias range per MP was reduced from -29.28 to 9.86 %, into -0.09-0.12 % after harmonization. For CEA, the mean bias range per MP was reduced from -23.78 to 2.00 % pre-harmonization to -3.13-1.42 % post-harmonization.
Conclusions: The present study suggests that a significant improvement in the harmonization status of CA 15-3 and CEA may be achieved by recalibration of a limited number of MPs.
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!