Chino S Aneke-Nash1, Clara Dominguez-Islas2, Petra Bůžková2, Qibin Qi3, Xiaonan Xue3, Michael Pollak4, Howard D Strickler3, Robert C Kaplan3. 1. Department of Epidemiology and Population Health, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY, United States. Electronic address: chino.aneke@med.einstein.yu.edu. 2. Department of Biostatistics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States. 3. Department of Epidemiology and Population Health, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY, United States. 4. Department of Medicine and Oncology, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Levels of insulin-like growth factor (IGF) proteins are associated with the risk of cancer and mortality. IGF assays produced by Diagnostic Systems Laboratories (DSL) were widely used in epidemiological studies, were not calibrated against recommended standards and are no longer commercially available. DESIGN: In a split sample study among 1471 adults participating in the Cardiovascular Health Study, we compared values obtained using DSL assays with alternative assays for serum IGF-I (Immunodiagnostic Systems, IDS), IGFBP-1 (American Laboratory Products Company, ALPCO) and IGFBP-3 (IDS). RESULTS: Results were compared using kernel density estimation plots, quartile analysis with weighted kappa statistics and linear regression models to assess the concordance of data from the different assays. Participants had a mean age of 77years. Results between alternative assays were strongly correlated (IGF-I, r=0.93 for DSL versus IDS; log-IGFBP-1, r=0.90 for DSL versus ALPCO; IGFBP-3, r=0.92 for DSL versus IDS). Cross tabulations showed that participants were usually in the same quartile categories regardless of the assay used (overall agreement, 74% for IGF-I, 64% for IGFBP-1, 71% for IGFBP-3). Weighted kappa also showed substantial agreement between assays (kw, 0.78 for IGF-I, 0.69 for IGFBP-1, 0.76 for IGFBP-3). Regressions of levels obtained with DSL assays (denoted X) to alternative assays were, IGF-I: 0.52X+15.2ng/ml, log-IGFBP-1: 1.01X-1.73ng/ml IGFBP-3: 0.87X+791.1ng/ml. Serum values of IGF-I, IGFBP-1 and IGFBP-3 measured using alternative assays are moderately correlated. CONCLUSIONS: Care is needed in the interpretation of data sets involving IGF analytes if assay methodologies are not uniform.
OBJECTIVE: Levels of insulin-like growth factor (IGF) proteins are associated with the risk of cancer and mortality. IGF assays produced by Diagnostic Systems Laboratories (DSL) were widely used in epidemiological studies, were not calibrated against recommended standards and are no longer commercially available. DESIGN: In a split sample study among 1471 adults participating in the Cardiovascular Health Study, we compared values obtained using DSL assays with alternative assays for serum IGF-I (Immunodiagnostic Systems, IDS), IGFBP-1 (American Laboratory Products Company, ALPCO) and IGFBP-3 (IDS). RESULTS: Results were compared using kernel density estimation plots, quartile analysis with weighted kappa statistics and linear regression models to assess the concordance of data from the different assays. Participants had a mean age of 77years. Results between alternative assays were strongly correlated (IGF-I, r=0.93 for DSL versus IDS; log-IGFBP-1, r=0.90 for DSL versus ALPCO; IGFBP-3, r=0.92 for DSL versus IDS). Cross tabulations showed that participants were usually in the same quartile categories regardless of the assay used (overall agreement, 74% for IGF-I, 64% for IGFBP-1, 71% for IGFBP-3). Weighted kappa also showed substantial agreement between assays (kw, 0.78 for IGF-I, 0.69 for IGFBP-1, 0.76 for IGFBP-3). Regressions of levels obtained with DSL assays (denoted X) to alternative assays were, IGF-I: 0.52X+15.2ng/ml, log-IGFBP-1: 1.01X-1.73ng/ml IGFBP-3: 0.87X+791.1ng/ml. Serum values of IGF-I, IGFBP-1 and IGFBP-3 measured using alternative assays are moderately correlated. CONCLUSIONS: Care is needed in the interpretation of data sets involving IGF analytes if assay methodologies are not uniform.
Authors: L P Fried; N O Borhani; P Enright; C D Furberg; J M Gardin; R A Kronmal; L H Kuller; T A Manolio; M B Mittelmark; A Newman Journal: Ann Epidemiol Date: 1991-02 Impact factor: 3.797
Authors: Martin Bidlingmaier; Nele Friedrich; Rebecca T Emeny; Joachim Spranger; Ole D Wolthers; Josefine Roswall; Antje Körner; Barbara Obermayer-Pietsch; Christoph Hübener; Jovanna Dahlgren; Jan Frystyk; Andreas F H Pfeiffer; Angela Doering; Maximilian Bielohuby; Henri Wallaschofski; Ayman M Arafat Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2014-02-27 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Andrew G Renehan; Marcel Zwahlen; Christoph Minder; Sarah T O'Dwyer; Stephen M Shalet; Matthias Egger Journal: Lancet Date: 2004-04-24 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Michael Bernd Ranke; Karl Josef Osterziel; Roland Schweizer; Burkhardt Schuett; Karin Weber; Patricia Röbbel; Arnold Vornwald; Gunnar Blumenstock; Martin W Elmlinger Journal: Clin Chem Lab Med Date: 2003-10 Impact factor: 3.694
Authors: Chino S Aneke-Nash; Xiaonan Xue; Qibin Qi; Mary L Biggs; Anne Cappola; Lewis Kuller; Michael Pollak; Bruce M Psaty; David Siscovick; Kenneth Mukamal; Howard D Strickler; Robert C Kaplan Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2017-12-01 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Robert C Kaplan; Garrett Strizich; Chino Aneke-Nash; Clara Dominguez-Islas; Petra Bužková; Howard Strickler; Thomas Rohan; Michael Pollak; Lewis Kuller; Jorge R Kizer; Anne Cappola; Christopher I Li; Bruce M Psaty; Anne Newman Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2017-01-01 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: José I. Labarta; Michael B. Ranke; Mohamad Maghnie; David Martin; Laura Guazzarotti; Roland Pfäffle; Ekaterina Koledova; Jan M. Wit Journal: J Clin Res Pediatr Endocrinol Date: 2020-10-02