Sweep Fred C G J, Fritsche Herbert A, Gion Massimo, Klee George G, Schmitt Manfred
Department of Chemical Endocrinology, University Medical Center Nijmegen, NL-6500 HB Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Int J Oncol. 2003 Dec;23(6):1715-26.
A major dilemma associated with immuno(metric) assays for biomarkers is that various kits employing antibodies with differing specificities and binding affinities may generate non-equivalent test results. Also, variation in sample processing and the use of different standards (reference material) may result in discordant test results. Therefore, assays and procedures should be standardized and the quality of biomarker assay results should be monitored by continuous between-laboratory proficiency testing of performance. External quality control requires an established network of expert laboratories in which the investigators interact freely and where technical issues are discussed. Although such networking is more often praised than practiced, we strongly endorse and advocate between-laboratory exchange of experience and information. The present study discusses analytical aspects of immuno(metric) biomarker assays and presents recommendations of the Receptor and Biomarker Group of the EORTC (European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer) how such tests should be validated for first time and day to day use. Moreover, a model for an appropriate quality assurance program is presented.
生物标志物免疫(分析)测定法面临的一个主要困境是,各种使用具有不同特异性和结合亲和力抗体的试剂盒可能会产生不等效的检测结果。此外,样品处理的差异以及不同标准品(参考物质)的使用可能导致检测结果不一致。因此,测定法和程序应标准化,生物标志物检测结果的质量应通过实验室间持续的性能能力验证来监测。外部质量控制需要一个由专业实验室组成的既定网络,研究人员可以在其中自由交流并讨论技术问题。尽管这种网络交流更多是受到赞扬而非实际践行,但我们强烈支持并倡导实验室间的经验和信息交流。本研究讨论了免疫(分析)生物标志物测定法的分析方面,并提出了欧洲癌症研究与治疗组织(EORTC)受体和生物标志物小组关于此类检测首次使用和日常使用应如何验证的建议。此外,还提出了一个适当质量保证计划的模型。