Method Comparison and Clinical Performance of Breast Cancer Tumor Markers on Novel Multiplex Immunoassay and Automatized LOCI Technology Platforms.
AFP
AUC
CA 125
CA 15-3
CA 19-9
CEA
breast cancer
diagnosis
method comparison
tumor marker
Journal
Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)
ISSN: 2075-4418
Titre abrégé: Diagnostics (Basel)
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101658402
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
30 Sep 2023
30 Sep 2023
Historique:
received:
08
08
2023
revised:
24
09
2023
accepted:
26
09
2023
medline:
14
10
2023
pubmed:
14
10
2023
entrez:
14
10
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Tumor marker determinations are valuable tools for the guidance of breast cancer patients during the course of disease. They are assessed on diverse analytical platforms that may be associated with differences according to the methods applied and the clinical performance. To investigate the method dependency and clinical significance of breast cancer protein tumor markers, CEA, CA 15-3, CA 125, CA 19-9 and AFP were measured in a total of 154 biobanked samples from 77 patients with breast cancer, 10 with DCIS, 31 with benign breast diseases and 36 healthy controls using a Millipore multiplex biomarker panel (MP) and an automized version of the routinely used Vista LOCI technology. The markers were compared between methods and investigated for diagnostic performance. CEA, CA 15-3 and AFP showed good correlations between both platforms with correlation coefficients of R = 0.85, 0.85 and 0.92, respectively, in all samples, but similarly also in the various subgroups. CA 125 and CA 19-9 showed only moderate correlations (R = 0.71 and 0.56, respectively). Absolute values were significantly higher for CEA, CA 15-3, CA 125 and AFP in the Vista LOCI as compared with the MP method and vice versa for CA 19-9. The diagnostic performance for discrimination of breast cancer from healthy controls was similar for both methods with AUCs in ROC curves for CEA (MP 0.81, 95% CI 0.72-0.91; LOCI 0.81; 95% CI 0.72-0.91) and CA-15-3 (MP 0.75, 95% CI 0.65-0.86; LOCI 0.67, 95% CI 0.54-0.79). Similar results were obtained for the comparison of breast cancer with benign breast diseases regarding CEA (AUC MP 0.62, 95% CI 0.51-0.73; LOCI 0.64, 95% CI 0.53-0.74) and CA-15-3 (MP 0.70, 95% CI 0.6-0.81; LOCI 0.66, 95% CI 0.54-0.77). Both platforms show moderate to good method comparability for tumor markers with similar clinical performance. However, absolute levels in individual patients should be interpreted with care.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37835844
pii: diagnostics13193101
doi: 10.3390/diagnostics13193101
pmc: PMC10572608
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Références
Ann Lab Med. 2018 Jul;38(4):355-361
pubmed: 29611386
Clin Chim Acta. 2015 Feb 2;440:16-22
pubmed: 25444743
Clin Chem. 2010 Jun;56(6):e1-48
pubmed: 20207771
Clin Biochem. 2020 Apr;78:43-57
pubmed: 32007438
Clin Chem Lab Med. 2013 Jul;51(7):1483-92
pubmed: 23420288
Clin Chim Acta. 2015 Aug 25;448:228-31
pubmed: 26160053
Clin Chem. 2010 Feb;56(2):314-8
pubmed: 20022982
JAMA. 2019 Jan 22;321(3):288-300
pubmed: 30667505
Tumour Biol. 2013 Oct;34(5):3093-100
pubmed: 23775009
Clin Chem. 2015 Dec;61(12):1446-52
pubmed: 26510957
Clin Chem Lab Med. 2008;46(5):588-99
pubmed: 18598201
Tumour Biol. 2017 Jun;39(6):1010428317711381
pubmed: 28618926
Diagnostics (Basel). 2023 Jun 09;13(12):
pubmed: 37370914
Clin Biochem. 2011 Sep;44(13):1128-1136
pubmed: 21704611
Clin Chem Lab Med. 2018 Jan 26;56(2):e56-e58
pubmed: 28822223
J Clin Oncol. 2015 Jun 20;33(18):2062-71
pubmed: 25964255
J Immunoassay Immunochem. 2012;33(4):435-45
pubmed: 22963492
J Immunol Methods. 2022 May;504:113257
pubmed: 35304118
Clin Chem. 2008 Aug;54(8):e1-e10
pubmed: 18606634
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2017 Sep 19;114(38):10202-10207
pubmed: 28874546
Ann Clin Biochem. 2009 May;46(Pt 3):264-5
pubmed: 19264828
Science. 2018 Feb 23;359(6378):926-930
pubmed: 29348365
Ger Med Sci. 2005 May 30;3:Doc02
pubmed: 19675719
Clin Biochem. 2016 Nov;49(16-17):1302-1306
pubmed: 27521619
J Clin Lab Anal. 2016 Jan;30(1):5-12
pubmed: 25283278
Scand J Clin Lab Invest Suppl. 2016;245:S94-9
pubmed: 27542005
Clin Chem. 2004 Dec;50(12):2338-44
pubmed: 15472032
Crit Rev Biotechnol. 2009;29(1):29-43
pubmed: 19514901
Med Princ Pract. 2013;22(1):4-11
pubmed: 22584792
Biomed Res Int. 2016;2016:9795269
pubmed: 28042579
Clin Chim Acta. 2019 Mar;490:113-127
pubmed: 30597138
Clin Chem Lab Med. 2021 May 10;60(4):543-552
pubmed: 33964202
Clin Chem Lab Med. 2008;46(5):612-22
pubmed: 18598203
Clin Chem Lab Med. 2008;46(5):600-11
pubmed: 18598202
Clin Chem Lab Med. 2021 Oct 15;60(4):553-555
pubmed: 34648697
J Breast Cancer. 2023 Apr;26(2):126-135
pubmed: 37051649
J Int Med Res. 2020 Apr;48(4):300060519882802
pubmed: 31856626
Semin Cancer Biol. 1999 Apr;9(2):67-81
pubmed: 10202129
World J Methodol. 2014 Dec 26;4(4):219-31
pubmed: 25541602
Clin Chem Lab Med. 2014 Nov;52(11):1549-55
pubmed: 24887962
Clin Chem. 2008 Dec;54(12):e11-79
pubmed: 19042984