Spurious elevation of serum PSA after curative treatment for prostate cancer: clinical consequences and the role of heterophilic antibodies

Identification of and solution for false D-dimer results

BACKGROUND

Clinically, D-dimer (DD) levels are mainly used to exclude diseases such as deep venous thrombosis (DVT). In clinical testing, DD assays can be subjected to interference that may cause false results, which directly affect the clinical diagnosis. Our hypothesis was that the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of the fibrin degradation product (FDP)/DD and fibrinogen (Fib)/DD ratios were used to identify these false results and corrected via multiple dilutions.

METHODS

In total, 16 776 samples were divided into three groups according to the DD levels detected by Sysmex CS5100 and CA7000: Group A, DD ≥ 2.0 μg/mL fibrinogen equivalent unit (FEU); group B, 0.5 < DD < 2.0 μg/mL FEU; and group C, DD ≤ 0.5 μg/mL FEU. The 95% CIs of the FDP/DD and Fib/DD ratios were calculated. Six abnormal DD results were found according to the 95% CIs. For verification, we performed multiple dilutions, compared the results with those of other instruments, and tested the addition of heterophilic blocking reagent (HBR).

RESULTS

The median and 95% CI of the FDP/DD ratio were 3.76 and 2.25-8.15 in group A, 5.63 and 2.86-10.58 in group B, 10.23 and 0.91-47.71 in groups C, respectively. For the Fib/DD ratio, the 95% CIs was 0.02-2.21 in group A, 0.68-8.15 in group B, and 3.82-55.27 in groups C. Six abnormal results were identified after multiple dilutions, by comparison with other detection systems, and after HBR addition.

CONCLUSIONS

The FDP/DD ratio is more reliable for identifying false results. If the FDP/DD ratio falls outside the 95% CI, it should be verified by different methods.

Falsely Undetectable Prostate-Specific Antigen (PSA) Due to Presence of an Inhibitory Serum Factor: A Case Report and Review of Pertinent Literature

Patient: Male, 63

Final Diagnosis: Recurrent prostate cancer

Symptoms: Falsely undetectable PSA

Medication: —

Clinical Procedure: Serum dilution

Specialty: Urology

What makes D-dimer assays suspicious-heterophilic antibodies?

BACKGROUND

Heterophilic antibodies are still an important source of interference in immunoassays, but reports of interference with D-dimers are rare. Are D-dimer level abnormalities, found in the clinic, caused by heterophilic antibodies as well, or are other mechanisms involved? We will elaborate on this issue through two different examples in this article.

METHODS

Serum from two patients with significantly elevated levels of D-dimers were measured and compared by different methods, diluted, and dealt with heterophilic antibody blockers. At the same time, to retrieve the interference, we focused on the cause of D-dimer false positives and made a systematic review of the literature.

RESULTS

The D-dimer values were normal (0.49 and 0.15 μg/mL) detected with different testing method and decreased after addition of heterophilic antibody blocking reagent. According to literature data, there were 66.7% (4/6) references showed the interference were heterophilic antibody.

CONCLUSIONS

The influence of heterophilic antibodies on the measurement of D-dimers remains a big challenge. Different measuring instruments and methods may have significant differences in the measurement of D-dimers. By using a combination of instrumental methods for measuring, incorporating heterophilic antibody blockers, and combining with clinical performance and imaging data, most of the interference can be eliminated.

Prevalence and causes of abnormal PSA recovery

BACKGROUND

Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test is of paramount importance as a diagnostic tool for the detection and monitoring of patients with prostate cancer. In the presence of interfering factors such as heterophilic antibodies or anti-PSA antibodies the PSA test can yield significantly falsified results. The prevalence of these factors is unknown.

METHODS

We determined the recovery of PSA concentrations diluting patient samples with a standard serum of known PSA concentration. Based on the frequency distribution of recoveries in a pre-study on 268 samples, samples with recoveries <80% or >120% were defined as suspect, re-tested and further characterized to identify the cause of interference.

RESULTS

A total of 1158 consecutive serum samples were analyzed. Four samples (0.3%) showed reproducibly disturbed recoveries of 10%, 68%, 166% and 4441%. In three samples heterophilic antibodies were identified as the probable cause, in the fourth anti-PSA-autoantibodies. The very low recovery caused by the latter interference was confirmed in serum, as well as heparin- and EDTA plasma of blood samples obtained 6 months later. Analysis by eight different immunoassays showed recoveries ranging between <10% and 80%. In a follow-up study of 212 random plasma samples we found seven samples with autoantibodies against PSA which however did not show any disturbed PSA recovery.

CONCLUSIONS

About 0.3% of PSA determinations by the electrochemiluminescence assay (ECLIA) of Roche diagnostics are disturbed by heterophilic or anti-PSA autoantibodies. Although they are rare, these interferences can cause relevant misinterpretations of a PSA test result.

Heterophilic antibody interference affecting multiple hormone assays: Is it due to rheumatoid factor?

Assay interference with heterophilic antibodies has been well described in literature. Rheumatoid factor is known to cause similar interference leading to falsely elevated hormone levels when measured by immunometric methods like enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) or multiplex immunoasays (MIA). We report a case of a 60-year-old male patient with a history of rheumatoid arthritis referred to our endocrine clinic for investigation of hypogonadism and was found to have high serum levels of LH, FSH, SHBG, Prolactin, HCG and TSH. We suspected assay interference and further tests were performed. We used Heteroblock tubes and PEG precipitation to eliminate the interference and the hormone levels post treatment were in the normal range. We believe the interference was caused by high serum levels of rheumatoid factor. Although he was treated with thyroxine for 3 years, we believe he may have been treated inappropriately as his Free T4 level was always normal despite high TSH due to assay interference. Our case illustrates the phenomenon of heterophilic antibody interference likely due to high levels of rheumatoid factor. It is essential for clinicians and endocrinologists in particular to be aware of this possibility when making treatment decisions in these groups of patients.