Serum pepsinogen reference intervals in apparently healthy Chinese population with latex enhanced turbidimetric immunoassay

Reference Ranges and Comparison of Pepsinogen by Chemiluminescence Immunoassay and Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay in Chinese Population

Objective

Serum pepsinogen (PG) is a good indicator of atrophic changes in the gastric mucosa. Gastric mucosal atrophy is a high-risk factor for gastric cancer. Serological testing for PG combined with endoscopy can help to improve gastric cancer screening. In this study, we established the reference ranges of serum PG-I, PG-II, and the PG-I/II ratio (PGR) in the Chinese population by chemiluminescence immunoassay (CLIA) and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Besides, in the real world, doctors are often confused by the results of different testing platforms. Thus, a comparison of methods CLIA and ELISA was performed.

Methods

2904 individuals were enrolled from six regions in China as part of the Chinese Adult Digestive Diseases Surveillance (2016) program. The individuals completed questionnaires and volunteered to undergo examinations, including gastroscopy, urea breath test, abdominal ultrasound examination and routine serologic tests. Serum was collected to measure PGs (including PG-I, PG-II and PGR) by CLIA and ELISA. Participants who were found obvious abnormalities or absent from the examinations were excluded. Ultimately, 747 healthy individuals were enrolled in this study. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to assess the distribution of variables. The Kruskal-Wallis H or Mann-Whitney U-tests were used to compare different sex, age, and geographical groups. The 95% reference ranges of PGs obtained by the two methods were established according to document CLSI-EP28-A3, with covariates of sex, age, and region. Spearman correlation analysis, linear regression analysis and allowable total error (ATE) zone analysis were utilized for comparing the two methods.

Results

On overall, the 95% reference ranges of PG-I, PG-II, and PGR measured by CLIA were 23.00-110.64 ng/mL, 2.50-19.13 ng/mL, and 3.87-13.30, respectively. Meanwhile, the reference ranges of PG-I, PG-II, and PGR measured by ELISA were 36.93-205.06 ng/mL, 1.65-17.96 ng/mL, and 7.50-33.60, respectively. Both PG-I and PG-II levels measured by the two platforms were found to be influenced by sex and age. PGR measured by CLIA was influenced by age but not by sex, while PGR measured by ELISA was not affected by either age or sex. Regional factors did not significantly impact the PG results, except for PG-I detected by ELISA. Ultimately, reference ranges for PGs were established based on age and sex stratification. Additionally, the Spearman correlation analysis revealed that the correlation coefficients for PG-I, PG-II, and PGR detected by the two methods were 0.899, 0.887, and 0.777, respectively, indicating a strong correlation between the two methods. The regression equation for the PG levels detected by two methods was obtained through linear regression analysis. The ATE analysis provided a visual depiction of the consistency between the two methods, clearly indicating the poor agreement between them.

Conclusion

This study established the reference ranges of PGs by strict and intact enrollment standard. In addition, the results indicated a strong linear relationship between the two methods, yet with a clear bias, which was valuable for laboratory interpretation.

Preliminary Study on Reference Interval of Serum Pepsinogen in Healthy Subjects

OBJECTIVE

This study determined the reference interval of pepsinogen (PG) of healthy people in the local region to provide a basis for early screening of gastric cancer.

METHODS

Among the healthy people who underwent a physical examination in our hospital from January 2020 to December 2020, 2568 subjects were selected based on the relevant screening criteria. Their serum PG I and II levels and PG I:PG II ratio were determined by chemiluminescent microparticle immunoassay (CIMA), and the results were statistically analyzed. Finally, according to document CLSI-C28-A3, the PG reference interval of the local region was determined.

RESULTS

The PG I and II levels of the males in all age groups were higher than those of the females in the corresponding age groups, and the differences were statistically significant (P < 0.05). However, the differences in the PG I:PG II ratio between the genders in the different age groups were not statistically significant (P > 0.05). The PG I and II levels increased with age in both men and women, while the PG I:PG II ratio was not correlated with age in either gender.

CONCLUSION

The PG reference interval of the local region was initially determined as providing a reliable reference basis for clinical treatment.

A magnetic nanoparticle-labeled immunoassay with europium and samarium for simultaneous quantification of serum pepsinogen I and II

OBJECTIVE

To develop a novel immunoassay for the simultaneous determination of serum pepsinogen I (PG I) and pepsinogen II (PG II) by combining established methods of time-resolved fluoroimmunoassay (TRFIA) and magnetic nanoparticles separation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This new immunoassay method was characterised by immobilising primary antibodies on the surface of magnetic particles and labelled with stable fluorescent chelates of europium and samarium.

RESULTS

Using magnetic nanoparticles, the TRFIA immunoassay exhibited broad dynamic assay ranges for PG I with detection limit of 0.33 ng/mL, while for PG II with detection limit of 0.38 ng/mL. Cross-reactivity between PGs I and II were <15. The intra- and inter-assay coefficient variations of the method were <3%, and the recoveries were in the range of 97-103% for serum samples. Bland-Altman analysis of 124 serum samples showed good consistency with a commercial TRFIA kit. For PG I, the mean (95% confidence interval) difference was 0.97 (-14.3-12.3) ng/mL, whilst for PG II the difference was 0.6 (-4.4-3.2) ng/mL.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data suggest that the method is feasible and could be developed into a platform for the routine clinical determination of PG I and PG II levels in human serum.

Significance of Serum Pepsinogens as a Biomarker for Gastric Cancer and Atrophic Gastritis Screening: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Human pepsinogens are considered promising serological biomarkers for the screening of atrophic gastritis (AG) and gastric cancer (GC). However, there has been controversy in the literature with respect to the validity of serum pepsinogen (SPG) for the detection of GC and AG. Consequently, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the diagnostic accuracy of SPG in GC and AG detection.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) for correlative original studies published up to September 30, 2014. The summary sensitivity, specificity, positive diagnostic likelihood ratio (DLR+), negative diagnostic likelihood ratio (DLR-), area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) were used to evaluate SPG in GC and AG screening based on bivariate random effects models. The inter-study heterogeneity was evaluated by the I2 statistics and publication bias was assessed using Begg and Mazumdar's test. Meta-regression and subgroup analyses were performed to explore study heterogeneity.

RESULTS

In total, 31 studies involving 1,520 GC patients and 2,265 AG patients were included in the meta-analysis. The summary sensitivity, specificity, DLR+, DLR-, AUC and DOR for GC screening using SPG were 0.69 (95% CI: 0.60-0.76), 0.73 (95% CI: 0.62-0.82), 2.57 (95% CI: 1.82-3.62), and 0.43 (95% CI: 0.34-0.54), 0.76 (95% CI: 0.72-0.80) and 6.01 (95% CI: 3.69-9.79), respectively. For AG screening, the summary sensitivity, specificity, DLR+, DLR-, AUC and DOR were 0.69 (95% CI: 0.55-0.80), 0.88 (95% CI: 0.77-0.94), 5.80 (95% CI: 3.06-10.99), and 0.35 (95% CI: 0.24-0.51), 0.85 (95% CI: 0.82-0.88) and 16.50 (95% CI: 8.18-33.28), respectively. In subgroup analysis, the use of combination of concentration of PGI and the ratio of PGI:PGII as measurement of SPG for GC screening yielded sensitivity of 0.70 (95% CI: 0.66-0.75), specificity of 0.79 (95% CI: 0.79-0.80), DOR of 6.92 (95% CI: 4.36-11.00), and AUC of 0.78 (95% CI: 0.72-0.81), while the use of concentration of PGI yielded sensitivity of 0.55 (95% CI: 0.51-0.60), specificity of 0.79 (95% CI: 0.76-0.82), DOR of 6.88 (95% CI: 2.30-20.60), and AUC of 0.77 (95% CI: 0.73-0.92). For AG screening, the use of ratio of PGI:PGII as measurement of SPG yielded sensitivity of 0.69 (95% CI: 0.52-0.83), specificity of 0.84 (95% CI: 0.68-0.93), DOR of 11.51 (95% CI: 6.14-21.56), and AUC of 0.83 (95% CI: 0.80-0.86), the use of combination of concentration of PGI and the ratio of PGI:PGII yield sensitivity of 0.79 (95% CI: 0.72-0.85), specificity of 0.89 (95% CI: 0.85-0.93), DOR of 24.64 (95% CI: 6.95-87.37), and AUC of 0.87 (95% CI: 0.81-0.92), concurrently, the use of concentration of PGI yield sensitivity of 0.46 (95% CI: 0.38-0.54), specificity of 0.93 (95% CI: 0.91-0.95), DOR of 19.86 (95% CI: 0.86-456.91), and AUC of 0.86 (95% CI: 0.52-1.00).

CONCLUSION

SPG has great potential as a noninvasive, population-based screening tool in GC and AG screening. In addition, given the potential publication bias and high heterogeneity of the included studies, further high quality studies are required in the future.