HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: clinchem.2004.031138v1 50/6/1012    most recent Submit an electronic Letter to the Editor about this paper Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (6) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Roddam, A. W. Articles by Ward, A. M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Roddam, A. W. Articles by Ward, A. M. Related Collections Laboratory Management General Clinical Chemistry Proteomics and Protein Markers Cancer Diagnostics (since 2002)

Assessing the Clinical Impact of Prostate-Specific Antigen Assay Variability and Nonequimolarity: A Simulation Study Based on the Population of the United Kingdom

¹ Cancer Research UK Epidemiology Unit, University of Oxford, Radcliffe Infirmary, Oxford OX2 6HE, United Kingdom. ² Diagnostics Division, Bayer HealthCare, Bayer House, Strawberry Hill, Newbury, Berks, and Department of Clinical Biochemistry, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom. ³ 19 Kerwin Drive, Dore, Sheffield, United Kingdom.

^aAuthor for correspondence. Fax 44-1865-310545; e-mail andrew.roddam{at}cancer.org.uk.

Background: Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) is the most widely used serum biomarker to differentiate between malignant and benign prostate disease. Assays that measure PSA can be biased and/or nonequimolar and hence report significantly different PSA values for samples with the same nominal amount. This report investigates the effects of biased and nonequimolar assays on the decision to recommend a patient for a prostate biopsy based on age-specific PSA values.

Methods: A simulation model, calibrated to the distribution of PSA values in the United Kingdom, was developed to estimate the effects of bias, nonequimolarity, and analytical imprecision in terms of the rates of men who are recommended to have a biopsy on the basis of their assay-reported PSA values when their true PSA values are below the threshold (false positives) or vice versa (false negatives).

Results: False recommendation rates for a calibrated equimolar assay are 0.5–0.9% for analytical imprecision between 5% and 10%. Positive bias leads to significant increases in false positives and significant decreases in false negatives, whereas negative bias has the opposite effect. False-positive rates for nonequimolar assays increase from 0.5% to 13% in the worst-case scenario, whereas false-negative rates are almost always 0%.

Conclusions: Biased and nonequimolar assays can have major detrimental effects on both false-negative and false-positive rates for recommending biopsy. PSA assays should therefore be calibrated to the International Standards and be unbiased and equimolar in response to minimize the likelihood of incorrect clinical decisions, which are potentially detrimental for both patient and healthcare provider.

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

				C. Stephan, M. Klaas, C. Muller, D. Schnorr, S. A. Loening, and K. Jung Interchangeability of Measurements of Total and Free Prostate-Specific Antigen in Serum with 5 Frequently Used Assay Combinations: An Update Clin. Chem., January 1, 2006; 52(1): 59 - 64. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]