Longitudinal evaluation of external quality assessment results for CA 15-3, CA 19-9, and CA 125

Background

Tumor markers are established laboratory tools that help to diagnose, estimate prognosis, and monitor the course of cancer. For meaningful decision-making in patient care, it is essential that methods and analytical platforms demonstrate high sensitivity, specificity, precision, and comparability. Regular participation at external quality assessment (EQA) schemes is mandatory for laboratories. Here, a longitudinal evaluation of EQA data was performed to assess the performance of tumor marker assays over time.

Methods

Longitudinal data of the cancer antigens (CA) 15-3 (n = 5,492), CA 19-9 (n = 6,802), and CA 125 (n = 5,362) from 14 INSTAND EQAs conducted between 2019 and 2023 were evaluated. A median of 197, 244 and 191 laboratories participated at the EQAs for CA 15-3, CA 19-9 and CA 125, respectively. Data evaluation encompasses intra- and inter-manufacturer specific variations over time, assay precision, and adherence to the EQA limits of ±24% for CA 15-3, ±27% for CA 19-9 and ±36% for CA 125.

Results

The study showed median manufacturer-dependent differences of up to 107% for CA 15-3, 99% for CA 125, and even 549% for CA 19-9 between the highest and the lowest methods over the studied period. Regarding the normalized median of all methods, the values of the most deviant methods were 0.42 for CA 15-3, 7.61 for CA 19-9, and 1.82 for CA 125. Intra-manufacturer variability was generally low, with median coefficients of variation (CV) below 10%. As the methods were evaluated according to method-specific consensus values, most participants passed the EQAs within the acceptance criteria. When the criteria were consistently set at 24%, the central 90% of participants passed the EQAs in 78.6%-100% for CA 15-3 (with exception of AX), 89.3%-100% for CA 125, and 64.3%-100% for CA 19-9.

Conclusion

While intra-method precision of most analytical platforms is acceptable for all three tumor markers, considerable inter-method variability was observed over the whole studied period demonstrating the necessity for better standardization and harmonization of the methods, development of international reference materials, and comprehensive commutability studies with patient samples.

Method Comparison and Clinical Performance of Breast Cancer Tumor Markers on Novel Multiplex Immunoassay and Automatized LOCI Technology Platforms

Tumor marker determinations are valuable tools for the guidance of breast cancer patients during the course of disease. They are assessed on diverse analytical platforms that may be associated with differences according to the methods applied and the clinical performance. To investigate the method dependency and clinical significance of breast cancer protein tumor markers, CEA, CA 15-3, CA 125, CA 19-9 and AFP were measured in a total of 154 biobanked samples from 77 patients with breast cancer, 10 with DCIS, 31 with benign breast diseases and 36 healthy controls using a Millipore multiplex biomarker panel (MP) and an automized version of the routinely used Vista LOCI technology. The markers were compared between methods and investigated for diagnostic performance. CEA, CA 15-3 and AFP showed good correlations between both platforms with correlation coefficients of R = 0.85, 0.85 and 0.92, respectively, in all samples, but similarly also in the various subgroups. CA 125 and CA 19-9 showed only moderate correlations (R = 0.71 and 0.56, respectively). Absolute values were significantly higher for CEA, CA 15-3, CA 125 and AFP in the Vista LOCI as compared with the MP method and vice versa for CA 19-9. The diagnostic performance for discrimination of breast cancer from healthy controls was similar for both methods with AUCs in ROC curves for CEA (MP 0.81, 95% CI 0.72-0.91; LOCI 0.81; 95% CI 0.72-0.91) and CA-15-3 (MP 0.75, 95% CI 0.65-0.86; LOCI 0.67, 95% CI 0.54-0.79). Similar results were obtained for the comparison of breast cancer with benign breast diseases regarding CEA (AUC MP 0.62, 95% CI 0.51-0.73; LOCI 0.64, 95% CI 0.53-0.74) and CA-15-3 (MP 0.70, 95% CI 0.6-0.81; LOCI 0.66, 95% CI 0.54-0.77). Both platforms show moderate to good method comparability for tumor markers with similar clinical performance. However, absolute levels in individual patients should be interpreted with care.

Improved sensitivity for detection of breast cancer by combination of miR-34a and tumor markers CA 15-3 or CEA

Background

MicroRNAs biomarkers have shown value for diagnosis and prognosis of various cancers. Combination with established tumor markers has rarely been done.

Results

Breast cancer patients had significantly higher serum RNA loads (AUC 0.665), lower miR-34a (AUC 0.772), higher CEA and CA 15-3 levels (AUCs 0.717 and 0.721) than healthy controls. miR-34a correlated with tumor stage and hormone receptor status. There was no significant difference between groups for all other miRNAs. Combination of miR-34a with CEA or CA 15-3 led to improved AUCs of 0.844 and 0.800, respectively. Sensitivity of miR-34a and CA 15-3 reached 56.1% at 95% specificity. When compared with benign breast diseases, combination of miR-34a (AUC 0.719) and CEA (0.623) or CA 15-3 (0.619) resulted in improved performances (0.794 and 0.741). Sensitivity of miR-34a and CA 15-3 reached 53.7% at 95% specificity.

Conclusion

While miR-34a provides valuable information for diagnosis and staging, combination with tumor markers CA15-3 or CEA improves the sensitivity for breast cancer detection.

Patients and Methods

The diagnostic relevance of the miR-21, miR-34a, miR-92a, miR-155, miR-222 and miR-let-7c was tested in sera of 103 individuals (55 breast cancer, 20 benign breast diseases, 28 healthy controls). MiRNAs were detected by quantitative rt-PCR after extraction and reverse transcription. Cel-miR-39 and miR-16 were used for normalization. Established tumor markers CEA, CA 15-3, CA 19-9 and CA 125 were measured by automatized immunoassays. Diagnostic performance was tested by areas under the curve (AUC) of receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and sensitivities at 90% and 95% specificity.

Cross-reactivity between MUC1 antigen and MCA: false elevation of serum CA 15-3 level in pregnant and lactating women by Ma695-Ma552-based assay

PURPOSE

Cancer antigen 153 (CA 15-3) is one of the most commonly used biomarkers of breast cancer. However, elevated CA 15-3 is reported in pregnant and lactating women more frequently on Beckman DxI 800 immunoassay system (Ma695-Ma552 antibody pair) than on Abbott ARCHITECT system (115D8-DF3 antibody pair) in laboratory methodological evaluation. We conducted this study in order to figure out the reason behind this phenomenon.

METHODS

Serum CA 15-3 concentration was analyzed in 426 subjects, including 180 patients with breast cancer, 121 patients with benign breast disease, and 125 healthy volunteers (45 pregnant and 80 non-pregnant women). CA 15-3 assay was further validated using another cohort of 112 pregnant or postpartum women. Immunological cross reaction was analyzed by Western blotting and immunoprecipitation.

RESULTS

The serum CA 15-3 level was abnormally higher in almost 95% of the pregnant and lactating women detected using Ma695-Ma552 antibody pair (median: 71.4 U/mL) than that detected using 115D8-DF3 antibody pair (median: 16.5 U/mL). Western blotting and immunoprecipitation indicated that such a significant difference was mainly due to the cross reaction between monoclonal antibody Ma552 and mucin-like carcinoma-associated antigen (MCA).

CONCLUSIONS

The CA 15-3 assay using 115D8-DF3 antibody pair is more suitable for monitoring therapy in pregnancy-associated breast cancer.

Clinical performance of LOCI™-based tumor marker assays for tumor markers CA 15-3, CA 125, CEA, CA 19-9 and AFP in gynecological cancers

Evidence is sparse regarding the clinical performance of luminescent oxygen channeling immunoassays-based tumor marker assays in gynecological cancer. Analyzing serum samples of 336 patients with Dimension™Vista1500, we investigated the diagnostic power of carbohydrate antigen 15-3, carbohydrate antigen 125, carcinoembryonic antigen, carbohydrate antigen 19-9, and alpha-fetoprotein in patients suffering from different types of gynecological cancer and precancerous gynecological diseases and compared findings to appropriate control groups. The cohort comprised 177 female patients with gynecological cancers (73 breast, 22 cervical, 16 endometrial, 17 vulva, and 49 ovarian cancers), 26 patients with precancerous gynecological diseases (11 vulva, 4 cervical, and 10 breast), 109 patients with benign gynecological diseases, and 24 healthy controls. Discriminative power was assessed by areas under the curve in receiver operating characteristic curves, and sensitivities were determined at a fixed specificity of 95%. Levels of biomarkers in healthy controls were in the expected ranges and a discriminative power between gynecological cancers and healthy controls was observed for several tumor markers. Established tumor type-associated markers were elevated in specific gynecological cancers and benign controls as well as within precancerous gynecological diseases and healthy control group. In ovarian cancer, carbohydrate antigen 125 and carbohydrate antigen 15-3 were significantly elevated compared to the respective benign diseases. Carbohydrate antigen 125 was the most conclusive marker (area under the curve = 0.86% and 77.6% sensitivity at 95% specificity). In breast cancer, carcinoembryonic antigen and carbohydrate antigen 15-3 were significantly higher than in the respective benign diseases. Carcinoembryonic antigen achieved the most conclusive area under the curve (0.65) with 31.5% sensitivity at 95% specificity. None of the investigated markers was found to be of value in discriminating benign and malignant cervical diseases. Carcinoembryonic antigen and alpha-fetoprotein distinguished precancerous breast and vulva diseases from healthy controls. These findings show that luminescent oxygen channeling immunoassays-based tumor marker assays provide reliable results in routine diagnostics.

Interassay Comparison of the Tumor Markers CA125, CA15.3, and CA27.29

BACKGROUND

Cancer antigens 125, 27.29, and 15-3 (CA125, CA27.29, and CA15-3) are markers of ovarian and breast cancer. Comparing tumor marker results across methods is challenging because of the lack of harmonization. Documenting comparability of results is important.

METHODS

Siemens Advia Centaur CA125 and CA27.29 assays were compared to their corresponding Beckman Coulter DxI CA125 and CA15-3 assays. The interassay bias was determined and the manufacturer-recommended reference intervals were evaluated.

RESULTS

The DxI CA125 assay demonstrated an overall positive 29% bias relative to the Centaur CA125 assay. The DxI CA15-3 assay demonstrated an overall negative 65% bias relative to the Centaur CA27.29 assay. For patients with multiple comparisons during the study period, the trend of results over time was similar across both sets of assays. Implementing the manufacturer-recommended reference interval for the DxI CA125 assay increased the abnormal flagging rate by 4.5%. In contrast, implementing the manufacturer-recommended reference interval for the DxI CA15-3 assay decreased the abnormal flagging rate by 13.0%.

CONCLUSIONS

The overall trends for the majority of patients were similar. Therefore, despite the overall biases, transitioning tumor marker assays should not affect clinical interpretation of results.

Circulating immunogenic cell death biomarkers HMGB1 and RAGE in breast cancer patients during neoadjuvant chemotherapy

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer patients aims at preoperative reduction of tumor volume for better resection results and prognosis. As not all patients respond to neoadjuvant therapy, predictive biomarkers are needed for more efficient individual management. In prospectively collected sera of 51 consecutive locally confined breast cancer (LBC) patients receiving preoperative, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, value level kinetics of soluble high mobility group box 1 (HMGB1), soluble receptor for advanced glycation end products (sRAGE) as well as the established breast cancer biomarkers CA 15-3 and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) were investigated and correlated with therapy response objectified by pathological staging at surgery. In addition, biomarkers were measured in sera of 30 healthy controls (HC), 13 patients with benign breast diseases, and 28 metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients. Pretherapeutic levels of soluble HMGB1 were decreased in MBC, while sRAGE was already decreased in LBC. In contrast, CA 15-3 and CEA were strongly elevated in MBC, but not in LBC. Combination of sRAGE and CA 15-3 enabled best discrimination of LBC from HC (AUC 78.2 %; sens 58 % at 95 % spec), while CA15-3 and CEA discriminated best between MBC and all controls (AUC 90.9 %; sens 70 % at 95 % spec). In LBC patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy, nine patients achieved complete remission (CR), 29 achieved partial remission (PR), while 13 had no change of disease (NC). NC patients tended to have higher HMGB1 and lower sRAGE levels before therapy onset (p = 0.056 and p = 0.054), while CA 15-3 and CEA did not predict therapeutic outcome. Furthermore, kinetics of HMGB1 during therapy correlated with efficacy of the treatment (p = 0.053). Markers of immunogenic cell death are valuable for the diagnosis of MBC and early estimation of response to neoadjuvant therapy in LBC patients.

Increased plasma concentrations of tumour markers in the absence of neoplasia

Tumour markers are a very heterogeneous group of molecules that are generally found in very small concentrations in the plasma and serum of healthy individuals. In the process of neoplastic differentiation the cell can synthesize, release, or induce synthesis of other cells, thus increasing their concentration in plasma and serum. These substances may also increase their plasma concentration in patients without cancer due to processes that increase the release or reduce catabolism, and so give rise to false positives. An understanding of the main physiopathological processes that increase the concentrations of these substances could improve our interpretation of tumour markers and their clinical application. In this study we review the physiopathological processes that may increase the plasma concentrations of tumour markers. We performed a bibliography review in PubMed, searching for causes of false positives for the following tumour markers: α-Fetoprotein, CA 125, CA 15-3, CA 19-9, CA 72-4, carcinoembryonic antigen, CYFRA 21-1, squamous cell carcinoma, prostatic specific antigen, β(2)-microglobulin, choriogonadotropin (β chain), chromogranin A, neuron specific enolase, HER2-neu, progastrin releasing peptide, S-100, and thyroglobulin. The results favour the use of tests which can identify pathological processes that may increase tumour marker concentrations.