4.7 Article

Clinical utility of an automated immunochemiluminometric thyroglobulin assay in differentiated thyroid carcinoma

Journal

CLINICAL CHEMISTRY
Volume 52, Issue 4, Pages 686-691

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1373/clinchem.2005.060095

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Thyroglobulin (Tg) measurements are important in the follow-up of patients with differentiated thyroid carcinoma (DTC). We evaluated the analytical and clinical performance of a new automated immunochemiluminometric assay for Tg (Tg-ICMA; Nichols Advantage Tg; Nichols Institute Diagnostics). Methods: We used the Tg-ICMA to measure Tg concentrations in serum samples from 110 Tg antibody-negative DTC patients undergoing thyroid-hormone suppression therapy. Disease state at the time of measurement was assessed on the basis of routine follow-up data. We compared the clinical performance of this assay with the routinely used IRMA (ELSA-hTG; CIS Bio International). Results: The detection limit and functional sensitivity of the Tg-ICMA, based on direct calibration to CRM457, were 0.05 and 0.6 mu g/L, respectively. No Tg-IRMA-positive cases were missed by the Tg-ICMA. Tg was measurable by Tg-ICMA (0.6-8.6 mu g/L) but undetectable by Tg-IRMA (< 1.5 mu g/L) in 12 patients (11%). Clinical data showed evidence of disease in 4 of 12 patients (33%). Conclusions: The Tg-ICMA is a sensitive and reproducible assay for identifying patients in follow-up for DTC with evidence of disease, but uncertainty remains with regard to interpreting findings of measurable serum Tg in patients with no evidence of disease. Follow-up data are required to determine the predictive value of these isolated Tg results. New concepts, i.e., serial Tg measurements and risk stratification of patients, need to be tested to confirm the applicability of this assay for clinical practice. (c) 2006 American Association for Clinical Chemistry.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available