Dataset Information

Impact of Thyroglobulin and Thyroglobulin Antibody Assay Performance on the Differential Classification of DTC Patients.

ABSTRACT:

Context

Measurements of thyroglobulin (Tg) and Tg antibodies are crucial in the follow-up of treated differentiated thyroid cancer (DTC) patients. Interassay differences may significantly impact follow-up.

Objective

The aim of this multicenter study was to explore the impact of Tg and Tg antibody assay performance on the differential classification of DTC patients, as described in national and international guidelines.

Design

Four commonly used Tg and Tg antibody assays were technically compared to reflect possible effects on patients with DTC follow-up. Storage stability at different storage temperatures was also investigated for LIAISON® and Kryptor assays, as this is an underexposed topic in current literature.

Results

B.R.A.H.M.S. assays yield approximately 50% lower Tg values over the whole range compared to the DiaSorin and Roche assays investigated. These differences between assays may result in potential misclassification in up to 7% of patients if fixed cutoffs (eg, 1 ng/mL) are applied. Poor correlation was also observed between the Tg antibody assays when the method-specific upper limits of normal are used as cutoffs. Storage of Tg and Tg antibodies was possible for 3 to 4 weeks at -20°C and -80°C. Calibration of the assays, however, was found to be crucial for stable results over time.

Conclusions

Technical aspects of Tg and Tg antibody assays, including interassay differences, calibration and standardization, and cutoff values, may have a significant clinical impact on the follow-up of DTC patients.

SUBMITTER: Schoonen L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8739647 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVES:To investigate longitudinal trajectory of SARS-CoV-2 neutralising antibodies and the performance of serological assays in diagnosing prior infection and predicting serum neutralisation titres with time Design Retrospective longitudinal analysis of a COVID19 case cohort . Setting NHS outpatient clinics Participants Individuals with RT-PCR diagnosed SARS-CoV-2 infection that did not require hospitalization Main outcome measures The sensitivity with which prior infection was detected and quantitative antibody titres were assessed using four SARS-CoV-2 serologic assay platforms. Two platforms employed SARS-CoV-2 spike (S) based antigens and two employed nucleocapsid (N) based antigens. Serum neutralising antibody titres were measured using a validated pseudotyped virus SARS-CoV-2 neutralisation assay. The ability of the serological assays to predict neutralisation titres at various times after PCR diagnosis was assessed. Results The three of the four serological assays had sensitivities of 95 to100% at 21-40 days post PCR-diagnosis, while a fourth assay had a lower sensitivity of 85%. The relative sensitivities of the assays changed with time and the sensitivity of one assay that had an initial sensitivity of >95% declined to 85% at 61-80 post PCR diagnosis, and to 71% at 81-100 days post diagnosis. Median antibody titres decreased in one serologic assay but were maintained over the observation period in other assays. The trajectories of median antibody titres measured in serologic assays over this time period were not dependent on whether the SARS-CoV-2 N or S proteins were used as antigen source. A broad range of SARS-CoV-2 neutralising titres were evident in individual sera, that decreased over time in the majority of participants; the median neutralisation titre in the cohort decreased by 45% over 4 weeks. Each of the serological assays gave quantitative measurements of antibody titres that correlated with SARS-CoV-2 neutralisation titres, but, the S-based serological assay measurements better predicted serum neutralisation potency. The strength of correlation between serologic assay results and neutralisation titres deteriorated with time and decreases in neutralisation titres in individual participants were not well predicted by changes in antibody titres measured using serologic assays. CONCLUSIONS:SARS-CoV-2 serologic assays differed in their comparative diagnostic performance over time. Different assays are more or less well suited for surveillance of populations for prior infection versus prediction of serum neutralisation potency. Continued monitoring of declining neutralisation titres during extended follow up should facilitate the establishment of appropriate serologic correlates of protection against SARS-CoV-2 reinfection.