ABSTRACT
Objective@#To analyze the comparability of different detection systems and methods for tumor markers (TM) by reviewing the results of TM external quality assessment (EQA) in Shandong province during 2015 and 2017. @*Methods@#The results of TM EQA from the Shandong Provincial Clinical Laboratory Center during 2015 and 2017 were collected, and grouped by the detection system or method. After outliers were removed by the CLInet EQA software, the mean and coefficient of variation (CV) in each group were calculated with median as the target value. The difference of TM results in different detection systems were compared by the Kruskal-Wallis H test. @*Results@#Taking alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) as an example, the average CV of different detection methods of TM EQA during 2015 and 2017 ranged from small to large in order of microparticle enzyme immunoassay, electrochemiluminescence, acridine ester chemiluminescence and chemiluminescence. The trends of CV of the other tumor markers were similar to AFP. The average CV of individual marker in electrochemiluminescence group was lower than that in microparticle enzyme immunoassay group. The intra-group CVs of imported detection systems such as Roche, Beckman etc. were relatively ideal, and the average CVs of most tumor markers were less than 10%. However, the intra-group CVs of domestic detection systems such as Shenzhen Snibe, Zhengzhou Autobio etc. were not ideal, and the average CVs of most tumor markers were more than 10%. The target values of different detection systems varied with different items and batches, and there were great variation in carbohydrate antigen (CA) series. @*Conclusion@#The results of TM detected by the same automatic detection system are comparable. However, the results of TM detected by most different detection systems and methods are not comparable.