Clinical utility of personalized reference intervals for CEA in the early detection of oncologic disease
Author:
Martínez-Espartosa Débora1ORCID, Alegre Estíbaliz23, Casero-Ramírez Hugo4, Díaz-Garzón Jorge5ORCID, Fernández-Calle Pilar5, Fuentes-Bullejos Patricia1ORCID, Varo Nerea2, González Álvaro23
Affiliation:
1. Biochemistry Department , Clínica Universidad de Navarra , Madrid , Spain 2. Biochemistry Department , Clínica Universidad de Navarra , Pamplona , Spain 3. Navarra Institute for Health Research (IDISNA) , Pamplona , Spain 4. Medida Tecnológica SL , Málaga , Spain 5. Department of Laboratory Medicine , Hospital Universitario La Paz , Madrid , Spain
Abstract
Abstract
Objectives
Personalized reference intervals (prRI) have been proposed as a diagnostic tool for assessing measurands with high individuality. Here, we evaluate clinical performance of prRI using carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) for cancer detection and compare it with that of reference change values (RCV) and other criteria recommended by clinical guidelines (e.g. 25 % of change between consecutive CEA results (RV25) and the cut-off point of 5 μg/L (CP5)).
Methods
Clinical and analytical data from 2,638 patients collected over 19 years were retrospectively evaluated. A total 15,485 CEA results were studied. For each patient, we calculated prRI and RCV using computer algorithms based on the combination of different strategies to assess the number of CEA results needed, consideration of one or two limits of reference interval and the intraindividual biological variation estimate (CVI) used: (a) publicly available (CVI-EU), (b) CVI calculated using an indirect method (CVI-NOO) and (c) within-person BV (CVP). For each new result identified falling outside the prRI, exceeding the RCV interval, RV25 or CP5, we searched for records identifying the presence of tumour at 3 and 12 months after the test. The sensitivity, specificity and predictive power of each strategy were calculated.
Results
PrRI approaches derived using CVI-EU, and both limits of reference interval achieve the best sensitivity (87.5 %) and NPV (99.3 %) at 3 and 12 months of all evaluated criteria. Only 3 results per patients are enough to calculate prRIs that reach this diagnostic performance.
Conclusions
PrRI approaches could be an effective tool to rule out new oncological findings during the active surveillance of patients.
Publisher
Walter de Gruyter GmbH
Reference38 articles.
1. Hing, JX, Mok, CW, Tan, PT, Sudhakar, SS, Seah, CM, Lee, WP, et al.. Clinical utility of tumour marker velocity of cancer antigen 15-3 (CA 15-3) and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) in breast cancer surveillance. Breast 2020;52:95–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2020.05.005. 2. Gaspar-Blázquez, JM, Pujol-Jaume, T, Pradera-Augé, JM, Barco-Sánchez, A, Carbonell-Muñoz, R, Filella-Pla, X, et al.. Recomendaciones para la optimización del uso de marcadores tumorales. Rev Lab Clin 2019;12:38–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.labcli.2018.09.002. 3. Molina, R, Barak, V, Van Dalen, A, Duffy, MJ, Einarsson, R, Gion, M, et al.. Tumor markers in breast cancer – European group on tumor markers recommendations. Tumor Biol 2005;26:281–93. https://doi.org/10.1159/000089260. 4. Wells, SA, Asa, SL, Dralle, H, Elisei, R, Evans, DB, Gagel, RF, et al.. Revised American thyroid association guidelines for the management of medullary thyroid carcinoma. Thyroid 2015;25:567–610. https://doi.org/10.1089/thy.2014.0335. 5. Tuxen, MK, Sölétormos, G, Dombernowsky, P. Tumor markers in the management of patients with ovarian cancer. Cancer Treat Rev 1995;21:215–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-7372(95)90002-0.
|
|