Andrew N Hoofnagle1, Mara Y Roth. 1. Departments of Laboratory Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195-7110, USA. ahoof@u.washington.edu
Abstract
CONTEXT: Serum thyroglobulin (Tg) measurements are central to the management of patients treated for differentiated thyroid carcinoma. For decades, Tg measurements have relied on methods that are subject to interference by commonly found substances in human serum and plasma, such as Tg autoantibodies. As a result, many patients need additional imaging studies to rule out cancer persistence or recurrence that could be avoided with more sensitive and specific testing methods. OBJECTIVES: The aims of this review are to: 1) briefly review the interferences common to Tg immunoassays; 2) introduce readers to liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry as a method for quantifying proteins in human serum/plasma; and 3) discuss the potential benefits and limitations of the method in the quantification of serum Tg. RESULTS: Mass spectrometric methods have traditionally lacked the sensitivity, robustness, and throughput to be useful clinical assays. These methods failed to meet the necessary clinical benchmarks due to the nature of the mass spectrometry workflow and instrumentation. Over the past few years, there have been major advances in reagents, automation, and instrumentation for the quantification of proteins using mass spectrometry. More recently, methods using mass spectrometry to detect and quantify Tg have been developed and are of sufficient quality to be used in the management of patients. CONCLUSIONS: Novel serum Tg assays that use mass spectrometry may avoid the issue of autoantibody interference and other problems with currently available immunoassays for Tg. Prospective studies are needed to fully understand the potential benefits of novel Tg assays to patients and care providers.
CONTEXT: Serum thyroglobulin (Tg) measurements are central to the management of patients treated for differentiated thyroid carcinoma. For decades, Tg measurements have relied on methods that are subject to interference by commonly found substances in human serum and plasma, such as Tg autoantibodies. As a result, many patients need additional imaging studies to rule out cancer persistence or recurrence that could be avoided with more sensitive and specific testing methods. OBJECTIVES: The aims of this review are to: 1) briefly review the interferences common to Tg immunoassays; 2) introduce readers to liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry as a method for quantifying proteins in human serum/plasma; and 3) discuss the potential benefits and limitations of the method in the quantification of serum Tg. RESULTS: Mass spectrometric methods have traditionally lacked the sensitivity, robustness, and throughput to be useful clinical assays. These methods failed to meet the necessary clinical benchmarks due to the nature of the mass spectrometry workflow and instrumentation. Over the past few years, there have been major advances in reagents, automation, and instrumentation for the quantification of proteins using mass spectrometry. More recently, methods using mass spectrometry to detect and quantify Tg have been developed and are of sufficient quality to be used in the management of patients. CONCLUSIONS: Novel serum Tg assays that use mass spectrometry may avoid the issue of autoantibody interference and other problems with currently available immunoassays for Tg. Prospective studies are needed to fully understand the potential benefits of novel Tg assays to patients and care providers.
Authors: Terri A Addona; Susan E Abbatiello; Birgit Schilling; Steven J Skates; D R Mani; David M Bunk; Clifford H Spiegelman; Lisa J Zimmerman; Amy-Joan L Ham; Hasmik Keshishian; Steven C Hall; Simon Allen; Ronald K Blackman; Christoph H Borchers; Charles Buck; Helene L Cardasis; Michael P Cusack; Nathan G Dodder; Bradford W Gibson; Jason M Held; Tara Hiltke; Angela Jackson; Eric B Johansen; Christopher R Kinsinger; Jing Li; Mehdi Mesri; Thomas A Neubert; Richard K Niles; Trenton C Pulsipher; David Ransohoff; Henry Rodriguez; Paul A Rudnick; Derek Smith; David L Tabb; Tony J Tegeler; Asokan M Variyath; Lorenzo J Vega-Montoto; Asa Wahlander; Sofia Waldemarson; Mu Wang; Jeffrey R Whiteaker; Lei Zhao; N Leigh Anderson; Susan J Fisher; Daniel C Liebler; Amanda G Paulovich; Fred E Regnier; Paul Tempst; Steven A Carr Journal: Nat Biotechnol Date: 2009-06-28 Impact factor: 54.908
Authors: Ha T T Phan; Pieter L Jager; Jacqueline E van der Wal; Wim J Sluiter; John T M Plukker; Rudi A J O Dierckx; Bruce H R Wolffenbuttel; Thera P Links Journal: Eur J Endocrinol Date: 2008-01 Impact factor: 6.664
Authors: Goncalo R Abecasis; Adam Auton; Lisa D Brooks; Mark A DePristo; Richard M Durbin; Robert E Handsaker; Hyun Min Kang; Gabor T Marth; Gil A McVean Journal: Nature Date: 2012-11-01 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Gary L Francis; Steven G Waguespack; Andrew J Bauer; Peter Angelos; Salvatore Benvenga; Janete M Cerutti; Catherine A Dinauer; Jill Hamilton; Ian D Hay; Markus Luster; Marguerite T Parisi; Marianna Rachmiel; Geoffrey B Thompson; Shunichi Yamashita Journal: Thyroid Date: 2015-07 Impact factor: 6.568
Authors: Stephen E Long; Brittany L Catron; Ashley Sp Boggs; Susan Sc Tai; Stephen A Wise Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2016-08-17 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: Bryan R Haugen; Erik K Alexander; Keith C Bible; Gerard M Doherty; Susan J Mandel; Yuri E Nikiforov; Furio Pacini; Gregory W Randolph; Anna M Sawka; Martin Schlumberger; Kathryn G Schuff; Steven I Sherman; Julie Ann Sosa; David L Steward; R Michael Tuttle; Leonard Wartofsky Journal: Thyroid Date: 2016-01 Impact factor: 6.568
Authors: Bing Zhang; Jeffrey R Whiteaker; Andrew N Hoofnagle; Geoffrey S Baird; Karin D Rodland; Amanda G Paulovich Journal: Nat Rev Clin Oncol Date: 2019-04 Impact factor: 66.675