Serial Tumor Marker Measurement in Ovarian Cancer Patients: A Case for Assay Consistency

2.50
Hdl Handle:
http://hdl.handle.net/10755/156527
Type:
Presentation
Title:
Serial Tumor Marker Measurement in Ovarian Cancer Patients: A Case for Assay Consistency
Abstract:
Serial Tumor Marker Measurement in Ovarian Cancer Patients: A Case for Assay Consistency
Conference Sponsor:Sigma Theta Tau International
Conference Year:2005
Author:McLemore, Monica, Ph.D, MPH, RN
P.I. Institution Name:University of California, San Francisco
Title:Assistant Clinical Professor
Articles reviewing CA125 report sensitivity and specificity, which are subject to bias based on assay manufacturer and/or type, source of specimen, and specimen demographics (age, stage, grade, and histopathological tumor type). There are over 38 commercial assays reported in published literature that measure CA125 and these assays fall into 5 major categories: ELISA, IRMA, CLEIA, MEIA, and LIA, in two generations. Despite over 2000 articles published articles since 1981, no comprehensive meta-analysis has been conducted to evaluate the performance of the various assays across patient populations and assay types. Methods A meta-analytic review was conducted to answer the following questions: 1.) What is the effect of assay type on CA125 measurement? What is the size (magnitude and direction) of the relationship? How linearly correlated are the different assay types? 2.) How precise are first-generation assays as compared to second-generation assays? Eleven studies were included in the analysis and effect sizes with confidence intervals were calculated. Sub-analyses were conducted to understand any confounding of assay performance with serial versus single measurement of patients and between/across assay performance bias based on assay manufacturer, assay generation, and assay type. Results The second-generation assays performed most accurately and consistently across patient populations and had greater correlation with the control assays than any other type. Assay manufacturer confounded the data and separate analyses show extreme differences in effect sizes Conclusions Clinical implications include the use of second-generation assays over all others and the same type of assay should be used when serially monitoring patients given the differences in CA125 measurement across assays. Patients should be instructed to have labs drawn at the same lab, or preferably using the same assay during treatment and follow up.
Repository Posting Date:
26-Oct-2011
Date of Publication:
17-Oct-2011
Sponsors:
Sigma Theta Tau International

Full metadata record

DC FieldValue Language
dc.typePresentationen_GB
dc.titleSerial Tumor Marker Measurement in Ovarian Cancer Patients: A Case for Assay Consistencyen_GB
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10755/156527-
dc.description.abstract<table><tr><td colspan="2" class="item-title">Serial Tumor Marker Measurement in Ovarian Cancer Patients: A Case for Assay Consistency</td></tr><tr class="item-sponsor"><td class="label">Conference Sponsor:</td><td class="value">Sigma Theta Tau International</td></tr><tr class="item-year"><td class="label">Conference Year:</td><td class="value">2005</td></tr><tr class="item-author"><td class="label">Author:</td><td class="value">McLemore, Monica, Ph.D, MPH, RN</td></tr><tr class="item-institute"><td class="label">P.I. Institution Name:</td><td class="value">University of California, San Francisco</td></tr><tr class="item-author-title"><td class="label">Title:</td><td class="value">Assistant Clinical Professor</td></tr><tr class="item-email"><td class="label">Email:</td><td class="value">McLemoreMR@alumni.ucsf.edu</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="item-abstract">Articles reviewing CA125 report sensitivity and specificity, which are subject to bias based on assay manufacturer and/or type, source of specimen, and specimen demographics (age, stage, grade, and histopathological tumor type). There are over 38 commercial assays reported in published literature that measure CA125 and these assays fall into 5 major categories: ELISA, IRMA, CLEIA, MEIA, and LIA, in two generations. Despite over 2000 articles published articles since 1981, no comprehensive meta-analysis has been conducted to evaluate the performance of the various assays across patient populations and assay types. Methods A meta-analytic review was conducted to answer the following questions: 1.) What is the effect of assay type on CA125 measurement? What is the size (magnitude and direction) of the relationship? How linearly correlated are the different assay types? 2.) How precise are first-generation assays as compared to second-generation assays? Eleven studies were included in the analysis and effect sizes with confidence intervals were calculated. Sub-analyses were conducted to understand any confounding of assay performance with serial versus single measurement of patients and between/across assay performance bias based on assay manufacturer, assay generation, and assay type. Results The second-generation assays performed most accurately and consistently across patient populations and had greater correlation with the control assays than any other type. Assay manufacturer confounded the data and separate analyses show extreme differences in effect sizes Conclusions Clinical implications include the use of second-generation assays over all others and the same type of assay should be used when serially monitoring patients given the differences in CA125 measurement across assays. Patients should be instructed to have labs drawn at the same lab, or preferably using the same assay during treatment and follow up.</td></tr></table>en_GB
dc.date.available2011-10-26T14:52:13Z-
dc.date.issued2011-10-17en_GB
dc.date.accessioned2011-10-26T14:52:13Z-
dc.description.sponsorshipSigma Theta Tau Internationalen_GB
All Items in this repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.