Method evaluation of pepsinogen I/II assay based on chemiluminescent immunoassays and comparison with other test methods

Eun Jung Cho, Hyun Ki Kim, Tae Dong Jeong, Dae Hyun Ko, Suh Eun Bae, Jong Soo Lee, Woochang Lee, Jae Won Choe, Sail Chun, Hwoon Yong Jung, Won Ki Min

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

11 Scopus citations

Abstract

Background: Serum pepsinogen (PG) I and the PG I/PG II ratio have been used for atrophic gastritis (AG) diagnosis for decades. Low levels of PG I and/or PG I/PG II are closely related to AG and predict the risk of gastric cancer. We evaluated the performance of the chemiluminescent immunoassay-based Architect Pepsinogen I/II assay. Methods: The evaluation consisted of determination of the precision, linearity, limit of blank (LoB), limit of detection (LoD) and method comparison with Eiken and Biohit assays. Results: The total CVs were below 5% for both PG I and PG II. Acceptable linearity was observed for PG I and PG II in their respective reportable ranges. The PG I LoB was 0.317 ng/mL and the PG II LoB was 0.418 ng/mL, and LoDs were 0.412 ng/mL and 0.497 ng/mL, respectively. Correlation analysis indicated that results of the Architect assay were comparable to those of the Eiken and Biohit assays, but the three methods lead to different estimations of the cancer risk. Conclusion: The overall analytical performance of Architect Pepsinogen I/II assay is acceptable for the detection of patients with suspected AG. The categorization results of gastric cancer risk showed some difference among test methods suggesting the need for harmonization among the methods from vendors.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)149-154
Number of pages6
JournalClinica Chimica Acta
Volume452
DOIs
StatePublished - 15 Jan 2016

Keywords

  • Atrophic gastritis
  • Chemiluminescent immunoassay
  • Gastric cancer
  • Method evaluation
  • Pepsinogen

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Method evaluation of pepsinogen I/II assay based on chemiluminescent immunoassays and comparison with other test methods'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this