Reference change value and measurement uncertainty in the evaluation of tumor markers

被引:3
|
作者
Yavuz, Hatice Bozkurt [1 ]
Bildirici, Mehmet Akif [2 ]
Yaman, Huseyin [3 ]
Karahan, Suleyman Caner [3 ]
Aliyazicioglu, Yuksel [3 ]
Orem, Asim [3 ]
机构
[1] Sebinkarahisar State Hosp, Giresun, Turkey
[2] Dogubayazit Doc Dr Yasar Eryilmaz State Hosp, Agri, Turkey
[3] Karadeniz Tech Univ, Dept Clin Biochem, Fac Med, Trabzon, Turkey
来源
SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL & LABORATORY INVESTIGATION | 2021年 / 81卷 / 07期
关键词
Uncertainty; reference values; tumor markers; reference change value AFP; CA; 125; 15-3; 19-9; CEA; BIOLOGICAL VARIATION; OVARIAN-CANCER; SERUM; CA-19-9; CA-125; LIMITS;
D O I
10.1080/00365513.2021.1979244
中图分类号
R-3 [医学研究方法]; R3 [基础医学];
学科分类号
1001 ;
摘要
The use of measurement uncertainty among clinical laboratories becomes widespread. Measurement uncertainty can be reported with the result, as well as be used in certain reference change value (RCV) calculation equations. RCV is especially recommended for use in tests with a low individuality index. In our study, we calculated the measurement uncertainty of AFP, CA 125, CA 15-3, CA 19-9, CEA tumor markers with the ISO TS 20914:2019. We compared results with limits. Two Beckman Coulter DXI-800 (Minnesota, USA) autoanalysers' results were used. We calculated the RCV values using the classical Fraser method, logarithmic Lund Method, and Clinical Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) method as Minimal Difference (MD). We found the same permissible measurement uncertainty limit as 15.97% for all five tumor markers. The highest RCV value was found as 90% upstream for AFP test with Lund logarithmic approach, the lowest RCV value was found as 12% for CEA with MD, all other RCV results were between these two values. We do not recommend the use of MD, as values for Biological variation are not used in the MD approach. We also recommend using the logarithmic approach, although it gives higher results. There are also clinical studies on the significance of tumor markers in a follow-up that show different results. These differences may be because the studies are conducted with different systems. Therefore, each laboratory needs to calculate its own RCV values. We also recommend informing the clinicians about the tests with high measurement uncertainty.
引用
收藏
页码:601 / 605
页数:5
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Uncertainty Evaluation of Copper Reference Solution
    Li, Yu-lei
    Liao, Dong-mei
    Rui, Rui
    CHEMICAL, MATERIAL AND METALLURGICAL ENGINEERING III, PTS 1-3, 2014, 881-883 : 1827 - +
  • [32] The approaches for measurement uncertainty evaluation
    Priel, Marc
    Amarouche, Soraya
    Fisicaro, Paola
    HOUILLE BLANCHE-REVUE INTERNATIONALE DE L EAU, 2009, (03): : 52 - 59
  • [33] Value of tumor markers in lung cancer
    Oremek, GM
    Sapoutzis, N
    8TH CENTRAL EUROPEAN LUNG CANCER CONFERENCE, 2002, : 67 - 74
  • [34] Method for evaluation of the key comparison reference value and its expanded uncertainty based on metrological approach
    Bogdan, M.
    Surmacz, T. R.
    MEASUREMENT 2007: 6TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON MEASUREMENT, PROCEEDINGS, 2007, : 322 - +
  • [35] Method for evaluation of the key comparison reference value and its expanded uncertainty based on metrological approach
    Witkovsky, V.
    Wimmer, G.
    MEASUREMENT 2007: 6TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON MEASUREMENT, PROCEEDINGS, 2007, : 26 - +
  • [36] Reliability of the immunoassay measurement of tumor markers
    Stern, P
    Friedecky, B
    JOURNAL OF TUMOR MARKER ONCOLOGY, 1999, 14 (04): : 29 - 36
  • [37] THE MEASUREMENT AND EVALUATION OF REFERENCE SERVICE
    ROTHSTEIN, S
    LIBRARY TRENDS, 1964, 12 (03) : 456 - 472
  • [39] Evaluation of Serum Creatinine Levels with Reference Change Value in Patients Receiving Colistin Treatment
    Cinpolat, Havva Yasemin
    Alkan, Sevil
    Altinisik, Hatice Betul
    Cakir, Dilek Ulker
    Oguzman, Hamdi
    LABORATORY MEDICINE, 2023, 54 (06) : 582 - 586
  • [40] Value of 18F-FDGPET/CT Combined With Tumor Markers in the Evaluation of Ascites
    Han, Na
    Sun, Xun
    Qin, Chunxia
    Bakari, Khamis Hassan
    Wu, Zhijian
    Zhang, Yongxue
    Lan, Xiaoli
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2018, 210 (05) : 1155 - 1163