Clinical Chemistry
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Clinical Chemistry 37: 231-236, 1991;
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Bormer, O. P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Bormer, O. P.

Clinical Chemistry, Vol 37, 231-236, Copyright © 1991 by American Association for Clinical Chemistry

Standardization, specificity, and diagnostic sensitivity of four immunoassays for carcinoembryonic antigen

OP Bormer
Central Laboratory, Norwegian Radium Hospital, Oslo.

Four "sandwich"-type immunoassays for carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) based on monoclonal antibodies (Abbott CEA-RIA Monoclonal, Pharmacia/Wallac Delfia CEA kit, Roche CEA EIA Duomab 60, and our in- house immunoradiometric assay) were compared for 357 samples from colorectal cancer patients and samples from 48 patients with chronic liver disease or with acute, irrelevant diseases. Relative to a common 5 micrograms/L reference limit, all four assays agreed regarding classification in 92% to 94% of the samples in the colorectal cancer samples, with the Abbott and Roche assays giving slightly more "normal" values. Cross-testing of CEA standards and the 1st International Reference Preparation 73/601 showed that calibration differences could not be eliminated by the use of a common standard. It has been earlier demonstrated that the monoclonal antibodies in the Roche assay have an epitope group specificity slightly different from those of the other three assays. This can explain why the correlations involving the Roche assay were weaker (r = 0.84-0.87) than those obtained with the other assays (r = 0.94-0.97). I conclude that agreement between the assays studied is as good as can be expected when different antibodies are used; nevertheless, consistent discrepancies between assays in several patients still necessitate the use of the same assay during follow-up.


The following articles in journals at HighWire Press have cited this article:


Home page
 Cancer Res.Home page
E. S. Kass, J. W. Greiner, J. A. Kantor, K. Y. Tsang, F. Guadagni, Z. Chen, B. Clark, R. D. Pascalis, J. Schlom, and C. Van Waes
Carcinoembryonic Antigen as a Target for Specific Antitumor Immunotherapy of Head and Neck Cancer
Cancer Res., September 1, 2002; 62(17): 5049 - 5057.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Clin. Chem.Home page
J.-C. Rymer, R. Sabatier, A. Daver, J. Bourleaud, M. Assicot, J. Bremond, J. Rapin, S. L. Salhi, B. Thirion, A. Vassault, et al.
A New Approach for Clinical Biological Assay Comparison and Standardization: Application of Principal Component Analysis to a Multicenter Study of Twenty-One Carcinoembryonic Antigen Immunoassay Kits
Clin. Chem., June 1, 1999; 45(6): 869 - 881.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1991 by the American Association for Clinical Chemistry.