Clinical utility of personalized reference intervals for CEA in the early detection of oncologic disease.

OBJECTIVES: Personalized reference intervals (prRI) have been proposed as a diagnostic tool for assessing measurands with high individuality. Here, we evaluate clinical performance of prRI using carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) for cancer detection and compare it with that of reference change values (RCV) and other criteria recommended by clinical guidelines (e.g. 25 % of change between consecutive CEA results (RV25) and the cut-off point of 5 µg/L (CP5)). METHODS: Clinical and analytical data from 2,638 patients collected over 19 years were retrospectively evaluated. A total 15,485 CEA results were studied. For each patient, we calculated prRI and RCV using computer algorithms based on the combination of different strategies to assess the number of CEA results needed, consideration of one or two limits of reference interval and the intraindividual biological variation estimate (CVI) used: (a) publicly available (CVI-EU), (b) CVI calculated using an indirect method (CVI-NOO) and (c) within-person BV (CVP). For each new result identified falling outside the prRI, exceeding the RCV interval, RV25 or CP5, we searched for records identifying the presence of tumour at 3 and 12 months after the test. The sensitivity, specificity and predictive power of each strategy were calculated. RESULTS: PrRI approaches derived using CVI-EU, and both limits of reference interval achieve the best sensitivity (87.5 %) and NPV (99.3 %) at 3 and 12 months of all evaluated criteria. Only 3 results per patients are enough to calculate prRIs that reach this diagnostic performance. CONCLUSIONS: PrRI approaches could be an effective tool to rule out new oncological findings during the active surveillance of patients.

Analysis of common biomarkers in capillary blood in routine clinical laboratory. Preanalytical and analytical comparison with venous blood.

OBJECTIVES: Remote self-collected capillary blood samples have been proposed as alternative to venous blood samples as an aid in telemedicine. The aim of this work is to compare the preanalytical and analytical performance of these two types of samples and to study the stability of common measurands in capillary blood. METHODS: Capillary and venous blood samples were collected in parallel from 296 patients in serum tubes to analyze 22 common biochemistry magnitudes after centrifugation and in EDTA tubes to analyze 15 hematologic magnitudes. Quality of the preanalytical process was assessed applying the model of quality indicator. 24 h stability at room temperature was studied by obtaining paired capillary samples. A questionnaire of assessment was conducted. RESULTS: Mean hemolysis index was higher in capillary samples compared to venous blood samples (p<0.001). Regression analysis and difference analysis showed no bias for all studied biochemistry parameters and hematologic parameters, except mean corpuscular volume (MCV), between capillary and venous blood samples. Regarding sample stability, percentage deviation was higher than the corresponding minimum analytical performance specification for ferritin, vitamin D, hematocrit, MCV, mean corpuscular hemoglobin concentration, platelets distribution wide, mean platelet volume and basophils. Finger pricking was perceived as less painful (p<0.05) than venipuncture in participants who undergo more than one blood test per year. CONCLUSIONS: Capillary blood can be used as an alternative to venous blood for the studied parameters in automated common clinical analyzers. Cautious should be taken if samples are not analyzed within 24 h from the collection.