Birte Nygaard1, Jens Bentzen2, Peter Laurberg3, Susanne Møller Pedersen4, Lars Bastholt5, Aase Handberg6, Carsten Rytter7, Christian Godballe8, Jens Faber1. 1. Department of Endocrinology, Herlev Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark. 2. Department of Oncology, Herlev Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark. 3. Department of Endocrinology, Aalborg Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark. 4. Department of Biochemistry, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Aarhus, Denmark. 5. Department of Oncology, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Aarhus, Denmark. 6. Department of Biochemistry, Aarhus Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark. 7. Department of Oncology, Aarhus Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark. 8. Department of ENT Head and Neck Surgery, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Aarhus, Denmark.
Abstract
UNLABELLED: During follow-up on patients treated for differentiated thyroid cancer, thyroglobulin (Tg) antibodies can interfere with the Tg assay, making the use of Tg less reliable as a tumor marker. PURPOSE: To compare Tg and Tg autoantibodies (Tg-Ab) methods used in Denmark, regarding the number of patient samples being accepted for evaluating the result of a serum thyroglobulin (s-Tg) measurement. DESIGN: 95 consecutive blood samples drawn from patients in 2006 in one center were selected according to the following criteria: s-Tg <1μg/l and accepted BRAHMS Tg+ recovery test using 50 ng of Tg. Samples were retested with: (1) DPC IMMULITE 2000 Tg and Tg-Ab, (2) BRAHMS Tg and Tg-Ab on Kryptor, (3) BRAHMS Tg+ and Dynotest anti-Tg, (4) DELFIA hTg and recovery test using 25 ng of Tg, and (5) BRAHMS Tg+ with recovery test using 1 and 50 ng of Tg. RESULTS: The number of patient samples that was not accepted for Tg evaluation varied from 2 to 26% when the reference values suggested by the manufacturers of the assay were used. When using the detection limit to the cutoff seen in epidemiological studies the number increased to 40%. CONCLUSION: We found large discrepancies in acceptance of patient samples for s-Tg evaluation, thus illustrating a diagnostic dilemma.
UNLABELLED: During follow-up on patients treated for differentiated thyroid cancer, thyroglobulin (Tg) antibodies can interfere with the Tg assay, making the use of Tg less reliable as a tumor marker. PURPOSE: To compare Tg and Tg autoantibodies (Tg-Ab) methods used in Denmark, regarding the number of patient samples being accepted for evaluating the result of a serum thyroglobulin (s-Tg) measurement. DESIGN: 95 consecutive blood samples drawn from patients in 2006 in one center were selected according to the following criteria: s-Tg <1μg/l and accepted BRAHMS Tg+ recovery test using 50 ng of Tg. Samples were retested with: (1) DPC IMMULITE 2000 Tg and Tg-Ab, (2) BRAHMS Tg and Tg-Ab on Kryptor, (3) BRAHMS Tg+ and Dynotest anti-Tg, (4) DELFIA hTg and recovery test using 25 ng of Tg, and (5) BRAHMS Tg+ with recovery test using 1 and 50 ng of Tg. RESULTS: The number of patient samples that was not accepted for Tg evaluation varied from 2 to 26% when the reference values suggested by the manufacturers of the assay were used. When using the detection limit to the cutoff seen in epidemiological studies the number increased to 40%. CONCLUSION: We found large discrepancies in acceptance of patient samples for s-Tg evaluation, thus illustrating a diagnostic dilemma.
Entities:
Keywords:
Thyroglobulin; Thyroglobulin antibodies; Thyroid cancer
Authors: David S Cooper; Gerard M Doherty; Bryan R Haugen; Bryan R Hauger; Richard T Kloos; Stephanie L Lee; Susan J Mandel; Ernest L Mazzaferri; Bryan McIver; Furio Pacini; Martin Schlumberger; Steven I Sherman; David L Steward; R Michael Tuttle Journal: Thyroid Date: 2009-11 Impact factor: 6.568
Authors: Valter T Boldarine; Rui M B Maciel; Gustavo S Guimarães; Claudia C D Nakabashi; Cleber P Camacho; Danielle M Andreoni; Maria da Conceição O C Mamone; Elza S Ikejiri; Teresa S Kasamatsu; Felipe Crispim; Flavio C Hojaij; Jairo T Hidal; Rosa P M Biscolla Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2010-02-19 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: F Pacini; E Molinaro; M G Castagna; L Agate; R Elisei; C Ceccarelli; F Lippi; D Taddei; L Grasso; A Pinchera Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2003-08 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Nils G Morgenthaler; Juergen Froehlich; Johann Rendl; Marita Willnich; Christine Alonso; Andreas Bergmann; Christoph Reiners Journal: Clin Chem Date: 2002-07 Impact factor: 8.327
Authors: M Schlumberger; A Hitzel; M E Toubert; C Corone; F Troalen; M H Schlageter; F Claustrat; S Koscielny; D Taieb; M Toubeau; F Bonichon; F Borson-Chazot; L Leenhardt; C Schvartz; C Dejax; I Brenot-Rossi; M Torlontano; F Tenenbaum; S Bardet; F Bussière; J J Girard; O Morel; O Schneegans; J L Schlienger; A Prost; D So; F Archambeaud; M Ricard; E Benhamou Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2007-04-10 Impact factor: 5.958
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