On the standardization of total prostate-specific antigen: an exercise with two reference preparations.

In this study, 112 serum samples were analyzed for total prostate-specific antigen with three well-established assays i.e. Tandem R and Tandem E (both from Hybritech Inc., San Diego, USA) and Prostatus Free/Total from Wallac Oy, Turku, Finland. Thirty-two samples were collected from prostate cancer patients, 32 from patients with benign prostate hyperplasia and 48 from men participating in a screening study for prostate cancer. The aim of the study was to compare the results before and after recalculation with the data obtained with two reference preparations for total prostate-specific antigen: Stanford 90:10 PSA Calibrator and Certified Reference Material 613 Prostate-Specific Antigen. Comparing the actual results revealed almost perfect correlations between Tandem R and Tandem E and between both Tandem assays and Prostatus. We observed statistically significant differences in accuracy between Tandem R and Tandem E: y(Tandem E)= 1.05 x(Tandem R)+0.07 and between Tandem E and Prostatus: y(Prostatus)= 0.94 x(Tandem E)+0.02 In both comparisons prostate-specific antigen values ranged from 0-40 microg/l. Recalculation with both reference preparations did not solve these discrepancies. One exception was the combination Tandem R and Tandem E. The application of either reference preparation solved the differences in accuracy here. In conclusion, even after recalibration, assays for total prostate-specific antigen are still not completely interchangeable.

New developments in the standardization of total prostate-specific antigen.

OBJECTIVE: Analytical evaluation of the calibration of three recently launched assays for the measurement of total prostate-specific antigen, i.e., IMx Total PSA (Abbott), Elecsys PSA (Roche), and IMMULITE 3rd Generation PSA (DPC). DESIGN AND METHODS: For accuracy assessment two reference materials were applied namely, Stanford 90:10 PSA Calibrator and Certified Reference Material 613 Prostate-Specific Antigen. Dilutions of these preparations were analyzed with all assays. In addition, clinical specimens from known prostate cancer or benign prostate hyperplasia patients and samples taken from an ongoing prostate cancer screening study were used for comparison. RESULTS: Application of the Stanford Calibrator revealed results well within 10% of the calculated values for all assays. Regarding the CRM Calibrator only the IMx Total PSA proved to approach the line of identity. The IMMULITE results differed about 40% and the Elecsys about 18% from the calculated values. The comparison with clinical specimens showed statistically different results for the combination IMMULITE-IMx and for IMMULITE-Elecsys. The regression lines for both collections were: y(IMx) = 0.86x(IMMULITE) +0.12 (n = 104, r = 0.970, Sy/x = 0.883 microg/L) and y(Elecsys) = 0.98x(IMMULITE) +0.38 (n = 97, r = 0.976, Sy/x = 0.733 microg/L). In the lower measuring range (PSA <5.0 microg/L) as measured with the screening samples (n = 43), these differences were less pronounced. CONCLUSION: In analytical sense a difference was found for both reference preparations in the assays studied. Clinically, despite improvements in methodology, results for total prostate-specific antigen are still not interchangeable. The possible consequences need to be elaborated.