Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38966130›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in molecular biosciences2024

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

Marcel Kremser, Nathalie Weiss, Anne Kaufmann-Stoeck, Laura Vierbaum, Arthur Schmitz, Ingo Schellenberg, Stefan Holdenrieder

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in molecular biosciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Biochemical landscape of breast cancer: integrating serum markers with clinical prognosis and staging.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Marcel KremserINSTAND e.V., Society for Promoting Quality Assurance in Medical Laboratories, Duesseldorf, Germany.
Nathalie WeissINSTAND e.V., Society for Promoting Quality Assurance in Medical Laboratories, Duesseldorf, Germany.
Anne Kaufmann-StoeckINSTAND e.V., Society for Promoting Quality Assurance in Medical Laboratories, Duesseldorf, Germany.
Laura VierbaumINSTAND e.V., Society for Promoting Quality Assurance in Medical Laboratories, Duesseldorf, Germany.
Arthur SchmitzINSTAND e.V., Society for Promoting Quality Assurance in Medical Laboratories, Duesseldorf, Germany.
Ingo SchellenbergINSTAND e.V., Society for Promoting Quality Assurance in Medical Laboratories, Duesseldorf, Germany.
Stefan HoldenriederINSTAND e.V., Society for Promoting Quality Assurance in Medical Laboratories, Duesseldorf, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

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.

Indexed as

CA 125CA 15-3CA 19-9cancer antigenEQAexternal quality assessmentINSTANDtumor marker

Identifiers

PMID38966130
PMCPMC11222321

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.