DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A Study on the Comparison of One Step Method and Two Step Method to Improve Reporting of CA 19-9 Results

CA 19-9 결과보고 개선을 위한 One step 방식과 Two step 방식의 비교에 관한 연구

  • Jae-Seok An (Department of Nuclear Medicine, National Cancer Center) ;
  • Ji-Na Kim (Department of Nuclear Medicine, National Cancer Center) ;
  • Kwang-Seo Park (Department of Nuclear Medicine, National Cancer Center) ;
  • Eun-Bit Joo (Department of Nuclear Medicine, National Cancer Center) ;
  • Sang-Hyuk Yoon (Department of Nuclear Medicine, National Cancer Center) ;
  • Yoon-Cheol Kim (Department of Nuclear Medicine, National Cancer Center)
  • 안재석 (국립암센터 핵의학과) ;
  • 김지나 (국립암센터 핵의학과) ;
  • 박광서 (국립암센터 핵의학과) ;
  • 주은빛 (국립암센터 핵의학과) ;
  • 윤상혁 (국립암센터 핵의학과) ;
  • 김윤철 (국립암센터 핵의학과)
  • Received : 2024.04.03
  • Accepted : 2024.05.02
  • Published : 2024.05.30

Abstract

Purpose: CA 19-9 is the most widely used tumor marker for the diagnosis of digestive system tumor, especially pancreatic and biliary tract cancer. This study was conducted to improve the result value near reference range by comparing the reagents of CA 19-9 one step method and two step method. In addition, it was intended to establish a standard for selecting reagents. Material and Methods: 120 patients who visited the National Cancer Center in 2023 were selected as subjects for this study. The reagents used in the study were CA 19-9 IRMA kits (Shinjin, Korea) and three types of reagents were compared. Two step method reagent that is currently being used (A), one step method reagent (B) and two step method reagent improved by request (C) were compared and regression analysis was performed on their data. And we also performed recovery test, linearity test and hook effect test for each reagent. Result: There were 46 cases of reagent B in which the concentration value was lower than the result measured in reagent A that was previously used, and 77 cases of reagent C. As a result of regression analysis of reagents A, B, and C, the coefficients of determination of reagents A and B, reagents A and C, and reagents B and C were 0.653, 0.577, and 0.875. In the recovery rate test and the linearity test, the results of all reagents were good, and in the hook effect test, reagent B showed a hook effect at a low value. Conclusion: The improved reagent C appears to have been improved based on the concentration value of reagent B, which the manufacturer judged to be more stable at low concentrations. The hook effect in reagent B can be a fatal reason for disqualification when selecting reagents in general patient samples which high-concentration samples appear frequently. The first improved reagent C will be able to be used once it is confirmed that it has more stability for various concentration values.

Keywords

References

  1. Myung SJ, Choi SM, Kim EO, Choi HS, Lee SK, Kim MH et al. The Diagnostic Value of CA19-9 in Pancreaticobiliary Diseases. Korean J Gastroenterol. 1995;27(3): 345-53.
  2. Oh HB, Ahn HY, Lee KJ, Hwang SH, Choi SE, Lee HJ. Clinical Evaluation of Diagnostic Drugs. 1st. Seoul: Korea Medical Book; 2007. p. 229-70
  3. Katzman BM, Ness KM, Algeciras-Schimnich A. Evaluation of the CLSI EP26-A protocol for detection of reagent lot-to-lot differences. Clin Biochem. 2017;50(13-14):768-77.
  4. Cho YY, Chun S, Lee SY, Chung JH, Park HD, Kim SW. Performance Evaluation of the Serum Thyroglobulin Assays with Immunochemiluminometric Assay and Immunoradiometric Assay for Differentiated Thyroid Cancer. Ann Lab Med. 2016;36(5):413-9.
  5. Chu Q, Takalkar A, Shi R, Shkouh-Amiri H. Accuracy of Multi-detector Computed Tomography, Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography-CT, and CA 19-9 Levels in Detecting Recurrent Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma. JOP. 2013;14(4):466-8.
  6. Ballehaninna UK, Chamberlain RS. The Clinical Utility of Serum CA 19-9 in the Diagnosis, Prognosis and Management of Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma: An Evidence Based Appraisal. J Gastrointest Oncol. 2012;3(2):105-19.