Method Comparison and Clinical Performance of Breast Cancer Tumor Markers on Novel Multiplex Immunoassay and Automatized LOCI Technology Platforms

Author:

Schröder Lars123ORCID,Mallmann Michael R.23,Domroese Christian M.23,Wefers Natalie4,Dolscheid-Pommerich Ramona4,Stoffel-Wagner Birgit4,Trulson Inga5,Vahldiek Kai6ORCID,Klawonn Frank567ORCID,Holdenrieder Stefan458ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Department of Gynecology, Ketteler-Hospital Offenbach, 63071 Offenbach, Germany

2. Department of Gynecology, University Hospital Bonn, 53127 Bonn, Germany

3. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, 50937 Cologne, Germany

4. Institute of Clinical Chemistry and Clinical Pharmacology, University Hospital Bonn, 53127 Bonn, Germany

5. Munich Biomarker Research Center, Institute of Laboratory Medicine, German Heart Center, Technical University Munich, 80636 Munich, Germany

6. Department of Computer Science, Ostfalia University, 38302 Wolfenbüttel, Germany

7. Helmholtz Centre for Infection Research, Biostatistics, 38124 Braunschweig, Germany

8. Center for the Evaluation of Biomarkers, 81679 Munich, Germany

Abstract

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.

Publisher

MDPI AG

Subject

Clinical Biochemistry

全球学者库

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"全球学者库"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前全球学者库共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2023 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3