Literature DB >> 15031266

Assessing the clinical impact of prostate-specific antigen assay variability and nonequimolarity: a simulation study based on the population of the United Kingdom.

Andrew W Roddam1, Christopher P Price, Naomi E Allen, Anthony Milford Ward.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) is the most widely used serum biomarker to differentiate between malignant and benign prostate disease. Assays that measure PSA can be biased and/or nonequimolar and hence report significantly different PSA values for samples with the same nominal amount. This report investigates the effects of biased and nonequimolar assays on the decision to recommend a patient for a prostate biopsy based on age-specific PSA values.
METHODS: A simulation model, calibrated to the distribution of PSA values in the United Kingdom, was developed to estimate the effects of bias, nonequimolarity, and analytical imprecision in terms of the rates of men who are recommended to have a biopsy on the basis of their assay-reported PSA values when their true PSA values are below the threshold (false positives) or vice versa (false negatives).
RESULTS: False recommendation rates for a calibrated equimolar assay are 0.5-0.9% for analytical imprecision between 5% and 10%. Positive bias leads to significant increases in false positives and significant decreases in false negatives, whereas negative bias has the opposite effect. False-positive rates for nonequimolar assays increase from 0.5% to 13% in the worst-case scenario, whereas false-negative rates are almost always 0%.
CONCLUSIONS: Biased and nonequimolar assays can have major detrimental effects on both false-negative and false-positive rates for recommending biopsy. PSA assays should therefore be calibrated to the International Standards and be unbiased and equimolar in response to minimize the likelihood of incorrect clinical decisions, which are potentially detrimental for both patient and healthcare provider.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15031266     DOI: 10.1373/clinchem.2004.031138

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Chem        ISSN: 0009-9147            Impact factor:   8.327


  4 in total

1.  Variability of assay methods for total and free PSA after WHO standardization.

Authors:  L Foj; X Filella; J Alcover; J M Augé; J M Escudero; R Molina
Journal:  Tumour Biol       Date:  2013-10-04

2.  Major inter-laboratory variations in PSA testing practices: results from national surveys in Ireland in 2006 and 2007.

Authors:  F J Drummond; L Sharp; H Comber
Journal:  Ir J Med Sci       Date:  2008-10-08       Impact factor: 1.568

3.  National Academy of Clinical Biochemistry Laboratory Medicine Practice Guidelines for use of tumor markers in clinical practice: quality requirements.

Authors:  Catharine M Sturgeon; Barry R Hoffman; Daniel W Chan; Soo-Ling Ch'ng; Elizabeth Hammond; Daniel F Hayes; Lance A Liotta; Emmanuel F Petricoin; Manfred Schmitt; O John Semmes; Györg Söletormos; Elena van der Merwe; Eleftherios P Diamandis
Journal:  Clin Chem       Date:  2008-07-07       Impact factor: 8.327

Review 4.  Taking a new biomarker into routine use--a perspective from the routine clinical biochemistry laboratory.

Authors:  Catharine Sturgeon; Robert Hill; Glen L Hortin; Douglas Thompson
Journal:  Proteomics Clin Appl       Date:  2010-11-22       Impact factor: 3.494

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.