Letter in reply to the letter to the editor of Ferraro S and Panteghini M with the title “More robust analytical evidence should support the selection for human chorionic gonadotropin assays for oncology application”

Jacobus P.J. Ungerer; Carel J. Pretorius

doi:10.1515/cclm-2019-1065

Published by De Gruyter December 27, 2019

Letter in reply to the letter to the editor of Ferraro S and Panteghini M with the title “More robust analytical evidence should support the selection for human chorionic gonadotropin assays for oncology application”

Jacobus P.J. Ungerer and Carel J. Pretorius

From the journal Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM)

https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2019-1065

Showing a limited preview of this publication:

Keywords: biomarker; cancer; human gonadotropin (hCG); limit of the blank; limit of detection

Author contributions: All the authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this submitted manuscript and approved submission.
Research funding: None declared.
Employment or leadership: None declared.
Honorarium: None declared.
Competing interests: The funding organization(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. Ferraro S, Panteghini M. More robust analytical evidence should support the selection of human chorionic gonadotropin assays for oncology application. Clin Chem Lab Med 2020;58:e61–3.10.1515/cclm-2019-0973Search in Google Scholar

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

3. Pretorius CJ, du Toit S, Wilgen U, Klingberg S, Jones M, Ungerer JP, 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

4. Currie LA. Detection and quantification limits: origins and historical overview. Analytica Chim Acta 1999;391:127–34.10.1016/S0003-2670(99)00105-1Search in Google Scholar

5. Ungerer JP, Pretorius CJ. High-sensitivity cardiac troponin: do think twice, it’s not all right. Clin Chem Lab Med 2017;55:1669–71.10.1515/cclm-2017-0025Search in Google Scholar PubMed

6. Currie LA. Nomenclature in evaluation of analytical methods including detection and quantification capabilities (IUPAC recommendation 1995). Pure Appl Chem 1995;67:1699–73.10.1351/pac199567101699Search in Google Scholar

7. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. Protocols for determination of limits of detection and limits of quantification; approved guidelines. CLSI document EP17-A2. Wayne, PA: CLSI, 2012.Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2019-10-14

Accepted: 2019-10-16

Published Online: 2019-12-27

Published in Print: 2020-02-25

Letter in reply to the letter to the editor of Ferraro S and Panteghini M with the title “More robust analytical evidence should support the selection for human chorionic gonadotropin assays for oncology application”

References

Journal and Issue

Articles in the same Issue