Skip to content
Licensed Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter December 27, 2019

More robust analytical evidence should support the selection of human chorionic gonadotropin assays for oncology application

  • Simona Ferraro EMAIL logo and Mauro Panteghini
  1. Author contributions: All the authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this submitted manuscript and approved submission.

  2. Research funding: None declared.

  3. Employment or leadership: None declared.

  4. Honorarium: None declared.

  5. Competing interests: The funding organisation(s) played no role in the study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; or in the decision to submit the report for publication.

References

1. Pretorius CJ, du Toit S, Wilgen U, Klingberg S, Jones M, Jacobus PJ, et al. How comparable are total human chorionic gonadotropin (hCGt) tumour markers assays? Clin Chem Lab Med 2020;58:438–44.10.1515/cclm-2019-0457Search in Google Scholar PubMed

2. Ferraro S, Trevisiol C, Gion M, Panteghini M. Human chorionic gonadotropin assays for testicular tumors: closing the gap between clinical and laboratory practice. Clin Chem 2018;64:270–8.10.1373/clinchem.2017.275263Search in Google Scholar PubMed

3. Ferraro S, Panteghini M. A step forward in identifying the right human chorionic gonadotropin assay for testicular cancer. Clin Chem Lab Med 2020;58:357–60.10.1515/cclm-2019-0319Search in Google Scholar PubMed

4. Sturgeon CM, Berger P, Bidart JM, Birtken S, Burns C, Norman RJ, et al. Differences in recognition of the 1st WHO international reference reagents for hCG-related isoforms by diagnostic immunoassays for human chorionic gonadotropin. Clin Chem 2009;55:1484–91.10.1373/clinchem.2009.124578Search in Google Scholar PubMed

5. Harvey RA, Mitchell HD, Stenman UH, Blankenstein MA, Nustad K, Stieber P, et al. Differences in total human chorionic gonadotropin immunoassay analytical specificity and ability to measure human chorionic gonadotropin in gestational trophoblastic disease and germ cell tumors. J Reprod Med 2010;55:285–95.Search in Google Scholar

6. Whittington J, Fantz CR, Gronowski AM, McCudden C, Mullins R, Sokoll L, et al. The analytical specificity of human chorionic gonadotropin assays determined using WHO International Reference Reagents. Clin Chim Acta 2010;411:81–5.10.1016/j.cca.2009.10.009Search in Google Scholar PubMed

7. Greene DN, Petrie MS, Pyle AL, Kamer SM, Grenache DG. Performance characteristics of the Beckman Coulter total βhCG (5th IS) assay. Clin Chim Acta 2015;439:61–7.10.1016/j.cca.2014.09.029Search in Google Scholar PubMed

8. Ferraro S, Incarbone GP, Rossi RS, Dolci A, Panteghini M. Human chorionic gonadotropin in oncology: a matter of tight (bio)marking. Clin Chem Lab Med 2020;58:e57–60.10.1515/cclm-2019-0629Search in Google Scholar PubMed

9. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI). Evaluation of detection capability for clinical laboratory measurement procedures; approved guideline – 2nd ed. CLSI document EP17-A2, 2012.Search in Google Scholar

10. Cobbaert C, Smit N, Gillery P. Metrological traceability and harmonization of medical tests: a quantum leap forward is needed to keep pace with globalization and stringent IVD-regulations in the 21st century! Clin Chem Lab Med 2018;56:1598–602.10.1515/cclm-2018-0343Search in Google Scholar PubMed

Received: 2019-09-17
Accepted: 2019-10-15
Published Online: 2019-12-27
Published in Print: 2020-02-25

©2020 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Downloaded on 28.3.2024 from https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/cclm-2019-0973/html
Scroll to top button