Department of Urology, St James's Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.
BJU Int. 2012 Sep;110(5):644-50. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10923.x. Epub 2012 Feb 16.
What's known on the subject? and What does the study add? Today, numerous assays for PSA detection are available from various manufacturers. However, these various assays do not detect PSA equally and several studies have demonstrated variability between them. In order to harmonise PSA results and reduce the discrepancies, reference materials are available for assay calibration. We have demonstrated significantly variability between 6 different assay methods currently in use in 9 hospitals despite assay calibration. Variability in PSA values was reduced with the standardisation of the assay method in 4 hospitals. Our results highlight the dilemma of PSA assay variability and stress the need for nationwide standardisation of PSA testing.
To determine whether standardization of total prostate-specific antigen (tPSA) assay methods reduces variability in tPSA measurements.
Blood samples from 84 patients attending a single urology department were distributed across nine hospitals selected throughout Ireland for the independent determination of tPSA under the same conditions. The selected hospitals collectively used six different assay methods for tPSA detection: Beckman Hybritech WHO Calibrated (used as reference method), Tosoh AIA 1800, Roche E170 (used in three hospitals), Abbott AxSYM, Immulite 2500 2nd Generation (used in two hospitals) and Siemens ADVIA Centaur. The method of tPSA detection was next standardized in a subset of four hospitals using the same assay method and the measurements were repeated. The difference in mean tPSA in the cohort across the hospitals tested was determined and the Bland-Altman test was used to assess the agreement between each test. Analysis was performed over both the full (0.5-30 µg/L, N = 84) and a narrow (3-7 µg/L, n = 25) tPSA range.
The range and the mean tPSA of the full cohort were inflated across the eight test hospitals, when compared with the reference hospital. The poorest agreement between assay methods was associated with a bias of 2.2 ± 2.4 µg/L. The variability in tPSA measurements between assay methods was inconsistent across the range of tPSA values tested and increased with increasing mean tPSA. Agreement in reported tPSA was excellent after standardization of tPSA assay methods (bias <0.2 µg/L). Over the narrow 3-7 µg/L PSA range, 12/25 (48%) patients had a tPSA range of values across all hospitals in excess of 2 µg/L. Following standardization of the tPSA assay method, patient tPSA ranges were <0.5 µg/L for 13/25 (52%) patients.
We have shown that the lack of standardization of tPSA assay methods across a panel of Irish hospitals leads to significant variability in the measured tPSA values for the same patient samples. Variability in tPSA values was reduced with the standardization of the assay method in four hospitals. Standardization of PSA testing on a nationwide scale is warranted.
确定总前列腺特异性抗原(tPSA)检测方法的标准化是否能降低 tPSA 检测结果的变异性。
从 1 家泌尿科就诊的 84 名患者的血样中采集标本,分发给爱尔兰各地的 9 家医院,在相同条件下独立检测 tPSA。这些选定的医院共同使用了 6 种不同的 tPSA 检测方法:Beckman Hybritech WHO 校准(用作参考方法)、Tosoh AIA 1800、罗氏 E170(在 3 家医院使用)、雅培 AxSYM、免疫 2500 第二代(在 2 家医院使用)和西门子 ADVIA Centaur。随后,在 4 家医院中使用相同的检测方法对 tPSA 检测方法进行标准化,重复测量。在各医院检测的患者中,确定了 tPSA 的平均值差异,并使用 Bland-Altman 检验评估了各检测之间的一致性。分析是在整个(0.5-30μg/L,N=84)和狭窄(3-7μg/L,n=25)tPSA 范围内进行的。
与参考医院相比,在 8 家检测医院中,整个队列的 tPSA 范围和均值都偏高。检测方法之间的一致性最差,与 2.2±2.4μg/L 的偏差相关。在检测的 tPSA 值范围内,tPSA 测量值的变异性不一致,且随平均 tPSA 的增加而增加。在 tPSA 检测方法标准化后,报告的 tPSA 之间的一致性极好(偏差<0.2μg/L)。在狭窄的 3-7μg/L PSA 范围内,25 名患者中有 12 名(48%)的 tPSA 范围在所有医院中均超过 2μg/L。在 tPSA 检测方法标准化后,25 名患者中有 13 名(52%)的患者 tPSA 范围<0.5μg/L。
我们已经表明,爱尔兰一组医院之间缺乏 tPSA 检测方法的标准化,导致同一患者样本的测量 tPSA 值存在显著差异。在 4 家医院对检测方法进行标准化后,tPSA 值的变异性降低。有必要在全国范围内对 PSA 检测进行标准化。