Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 May 9:26:e00235.
doi: 10.1016/j.plabm.2021.e00235. eCollection 2021 Aug.

Comparison of two immunoassays for the measurement of serum HE4 for ovarian cancer

Chloe E Barr  1 , Garth Funston  2 , Luke T A Mounce  3 , Phillip W Pemberton  4 , Jonathon D Howe  4 , Emma J Crosbie  1   5
Affiliations

Comparison of two immunoassays for the measurement of serum HE4 for ovarian cancer

Chloe E Barr et al. Pract Lab Med. .

Abstract

Introduction: The use of Human Epididymis Protein 4 (HE4) as a biomarker for ovarian cancer is gaining traction, providing the impetus for development of a high throughput automated HE4 assay that is comparable to the conventional manual enzyme immunometric-assay (EIA). The aim of this study was to compare two immunoassay methods for the measurement of serum HE4.

Materials and methods: 1348 serum samples were analysed for serum HE4 using both the EIA and the automated chemiluminescent immunoassay (CLEIA) methods. HE4 values were compared using a Passing-Bablok regression and agreement assessed using Lin's concordance correlation coefficient (CCC). The absolute and percentage bias of the CLEIA compared to EIA was determined.

Results: There was moderate agreement between the two methods (CCC 0.929, 95%CI 0.923-0.936). Passing-Bablok regression demonstrated an overestimation of the CLEIA [constant 4.44 (95%CI 2.96-5.68), slope 1.04 (95%CI 1.02-1.07)]. The CLEIA method had a mean percentage bias of 16.25% compared to the EIA method.

Conclusion: The CLEIA significantly overestimated serum HE4 values compared to the EIA, which could impact clinical interpretation and patient management. Further studies are required to develop an appropriate cut-off depending on the population being investigated and the analytic method being used.

Keywords: Biomarker; HE4; Immunoassay; Ovarian cancer detection.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Passing-Bablok regression of the comparison of HE4 concentrations measured under CLEIA relative to EIA.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Scatter plots of bias.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Reid B.M., Permuth J.B., Sellers T.A. Epidemiology of ovarian cancer: a review. Canc. Biol. Med. 2017;14(1):9–32. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Urban N., Thorpe J., Karlan B.Y., McIntosh M.W., Palomares M.R., Daly M.B. Interpretation of single and serial measures of HE4 and CA125 in asymptomatic women at high risk for ovarian cancer. Canc. Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev. 2012;21(11):2087–2094. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Ferraro S., Borille S., Carnevale A., Frusciante E., Bassani N., Panteghini M. Verification of the harmonization of human epididymis protein 4 assays. Clin. Chem. Lab. Med. 2016;54(10):1635–1643. - PubMed
    1. Huang J., Chen J., Huang Q. Diagnostic value of HE4 in ovarian cancer: a meta-analysis. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 2018;231:35–42. - PubMed
    1. Dayyani F., Uhlig S., Colson B., Simon K., Rolny V., Morgenstern D. Diagnostic performance of risk of ovarian malignancy Algorithm against CA125 and HE4 in connection with ovarian cancer: a meta-analysis. Int. J. Gynecol. Canc. 2016;26(9):1586–1593. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources