Kremser M, Weiss N, Kaufmann-Stoeck A, Vierbaum L, Schmitz A, Schellenberg I, Holdenrieder S. Longitudinal evaluation of external quality assessment results for CA 15-3, CA 19-9, and CA 125.
Front Mol Biosci 2024;
11:1401619. [PMID:
38966130 PMCID:
PMC11222321 DOI:
10.3389/fmolb.2024.1401619]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/15/2024] [Accepted: 05/30/2024] [Indexed: 07/06/2024] Open
Abstract
Background
Tumor markers are established laboratory tools that help to diagnose, estimate prognosis, and monitor the course of cancer. For meaningful decision-making in patient care, it is essential that methods and analytical platforms demonstrate high sensitivity, specificity, precision, and comparability. Regular participation at external quality assessment (EQA) schemes is mandatory for laboratories. Here, a longitudinal evaluation of EQA data was performed to assess the performance of tumor marker assays over time.
Methods
Longitudinal data of the cancer antigens (CA) 15-3 (n = 5,492), CA 19-9 (n = 6,802), and CA 125 (n = 5,362) from 14 INSTAND EQAs conducted between 2019 and 2023 were evaluated. A median of 197, 244 and 191 laboratories participated at the EQAs for CA 15-3, CA 19-9 and CA 125, respectively. Data evaluation encompasses intra- and inter-manufacturer specific variations over time, assay precision, and adherence to the EQA limits of ±24% for CA 15-3, ±27% for CA 19-9 and ±36% for CA 125.
Results
The study showed median manufacturer-dependent differences of up to 107% for CA 15-3, 99% for CA 125, and even 549% for CA 19-9 between the highest and the lowest methods over the studied period. Regarding the normalized median of all methods, the values of the most deviant methods were 0.42 for CA 15-3, 7.61 for CA 19-9, and 1.82 for CA 125. Intra-manufacturer variability was generally low, with median coefficients of variation (CV) below 10%. As the methods were evaluated according to method-specific consensus values, most participants passed the EQAs within the acceptance criteria. When the criteria were consistently set at 24%, the central 90% of participants passed the EQAs in 78.6%-100% for CA 15-3 (with exception of AX), 89.3%-100% for CA 125, and 64.3%-100% for CA 19-9.
Conclusion
While intra-method precision of most analytical platforms is acceptable for all three tumor markers, considerable inter-method variability was observed over the whole studied period demonstrating the necessity for better standardization and harmonization of the methods, development of international reference materials, and comprehensive commutability studies with patient samples.
Collapse