Suppr超能文献

CA19-9 的陷阱:常规检测及在参考肿瘤中心对两种自动化免疫分析的比较。

The pitfalls of CA19-9: routine testing and comparison of two automated immunoassays in a reference oncology center.

机构信息

Division of Laboratory Medicine, European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy.

出版信息

Am J Clin Pathol. 2012 Aug;138(2):281-7. doi: 10.1309/AJCPOPNPLLCYR07H.

Abstract

We evaluated CA19-9 as a marker of various malignancies and compared the results of 2 commercial immunoassays. The Abbott ARCHITECT i2000 and Roche cobas 410 immunoassays were used on 500 consecutive samples to evaluate the frequency of positive results by cancer type and the correlation between assays. The patients were tested before or after surgery and/or during chemotherapy. The rate of results exceeding conventional thresholds was 92.3% in pancreatic cancer, 36.8% in gastric cancer, and ranged from 3.0% to 35.9% in other tumors. Agreement (90.6%) and correlation (R(2) = 0.865) between the 2 assays were good and the frequency of highly discordant results was low (6/500). In some cases, interference by heterophilic antibodies was demonstrated. The 2 methods were comparable in diagnostic accuracy and had good correlation but are not interchangeable. Patients should always be monitored for CA19-9 with the same method and it should be indicated in the report.

摘要

我们评估了 CA19-9 作为各种恶性肿瘤的标志物,并比较了两种商业免疫测定的结果。Abbott ARCHITECT i2000 和 Roche cobas 410 免疫测定法用于 500 例连续样本,以评估按癌症类型划分的阳性结果频率和测定法之间的相关性。患者在手术前后和/或化疗期间接受了检测。胰腺癌的结果超过传统阈值的比率为 92.3%,胃癌为 36.8%,其他肿瘤的比率为 3.0%至 35.9%。两种测定法之间的一致性(90.6%)和相关性(R(2) = 0.865)良好,高度不一致结果的频率较低(500 例中有 6 例)。在某些情况下,证实了异嗜性抗体的干扰。这两种方法在诊断准确性方面具有可比性,相关性良好,但不能互换。应始终使用相同的方法监测患者的 CA19-9,并在报告中注明。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验