Performance Characteristics of Seven Neuron-Specific Enolase AssaysStern P.a, b · Bartos V.e · Uhrova J.b · Bezdickova D.b · Vanickova Z.b · Tichy V.c · Pelinkova K.b · Prusa R.d · Zima T.b
aDepartment of Clinical Biochemistry, Institute for Postgraduate Medical Education, bInstitute of Clinical Biochemistry and Laboratory Diagnostics, General University Hospital and First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, cDepartment of Clinical Biochemistry and Hematology, Centromed, and dInstitute of Clinical Chemistry and Pathobiochemistry, Faculty Hospital Motol, Prague, and eDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital and Policlinic, Ostrava, Czech Republic
Do you have an account?
- Rent for 48h to view
- Buy Cloud Access for unlimited viewing via different devices
- Synchronizing in the ReadCube Cloud
- Printing and saving restrictions apply
Rental: USD 8.50
Cloud: USD 20.00
Background/Aims: The determination of neuron-specific enolase (NSE) is relatively frequently requested in the differential diagnosis of small-cell lung carcinoma and non-small-cell lung carcinoma. The individual results of different immunoassays are often not comparable, which has been confirmed by long-term external quality assessments. In this study, we assessed the possible sources of these differences. Methods: More than 3,000 NSE analyses were performed using seven different immunoassays: DELFIA (PerkinElmer), Elecsys 2010 or Modular Analytics E 170 (Roche), Kryptor (B.R.A.H.M.S.), the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay DRG and three assays based on immunoradiometric assays (DiaSorin, Immunotech and Schering-CIS). The following parameters were evaluated: precision profile of the individual methods, linearity on dilution and modified recovery, comparability and discrimination of immunoassays, sensitivity, and specificity. Results: There were differences in the correlation of values of certain low-concentration specimens. Some assays correlate well while others do not (up to fivefold difference), especially in the case of controls prepared synthetically. Therefore, the current non-standardized preparation of controls is questionable in our opinion. In the cutoff range, the difference in the results of native samples did not exceed its double value. The variation in values >100 µg/l obtained with different assays is <40%. Conclusion: Our results confirmed expected matrix interferences especially in the range of normal and cutoff NSE concentrations. Another source of discrepancies can be attributed to different antibody affinity to αγ- and γγ-enolase isoenzymes. Finally, improper settings of cutoff values also contribute to the different discrimination of the methods.
© 2007 S. Karger AG, Basel
Article / Publication Details
Copyright / Drug Dosage / DisclaimerCopyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.