|
|
||||||||
Editorial |
The Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, MD 21287
a Address correspondence to this author at: Division of Clinical Chemistry, Department of Pathology, The Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, 600 N. Wolfe St., Meyer B-121, Baltimore, MD 21287. Fax 410-955-0767; e-mail dchan@jhmi.edu.
Despite the success of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) as a tumor marker for the early detection and monitoring of disease in prostate cancer, both clinical and analytical limitations of PSA remain (1). Since the introduction of assays for total PSA in the mid-1980s, assay results have been found to differ among manufacturers (2)(3). Much has been learned in the last two decades about the biology of PSA and the molecular forms of PSA present in serum. Differences among assays still persist, however, even among assays from the same manufacturer that have the same antibodies but different assay formats. With the availability of the First International Standards from WHO, is this the beginning of the end for assay discrepancies?
The lack of standardization of PSA was recognized early on as contributing to disparities among assays. Similar to some other tumor markers, a lack of defined antigens, differences in calibrator composition and specific molecular forms, and differences in calibrator assignments as well as the lack of a reference method are some of the issues hampering assay standardization. The lack of standardization of PSA prompted several organizations as well as individual researchers to convene meetings and conferences to address the issue.
The Second Stanford Conference on International Standardization of
Prostate-specific Antigen (4) was held in 1994. At this
conference, the use of a standard, prepared at Stanford by Tom Stamey,
consisting of 90% purified
PSA-
1-antichymotrypsin (ACT) and 10% free PSA
(90:10) on a molar basis was proposed with the rationale that these
Acknowledgments
References
The following articles in journals at HighWire Press have cited this article:
![]() |
C. M. Sturgeon, M. J. Duffy, U.-H. Stenman, H. Lilja, N. Brunner, D. W. Chan, R. Babaian, R. C. Bast Jr., B. Dowell, F. J. Esteva, et al. National Academy of Clinical Biochemistry Laboratory Medicine Practice Guidelines for Use of Tumor Markers in Testicular, Prostate, Colorectal, Breast, and Ovarian Cancers Clin. Chem., December 1, 2008; 54(12): e11 - e79. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
D. Ulmert, A. M. Serio, M. F. O'Brien, C. Becker, J. A. Eastham, P. T. Scardino, T. Bjork, G. Berglund, A. J. Vickers, and H. Lilja Long-Term Prediction of Prostate Cancer: Prostate-Specific Antigen (PSA) Velocity Is Predictive but Does Not Improve the Predictive Accuracy of a Single PSA Measurement 15 Years or More Before Cancer Diagnosis in a Large, Representative, Unscreened Population J. Clin. Oncol., February 20, 2008; 26(6): 835 - 841. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
S. A.R. Kort, F. Martens, H. Vanpoucke, H. L. van Duijnhoven, and M. A. Blankenstein Comparison of 6 Automated Assays for Total and Free Prostate-Specific Antigen with Special Reference to Their Reactivity toward the WHO 96/670 Reference Preparation Clin. Chem., August 1, 2006; 52(8): 1568 - 1574. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
C. Stephan, M. Klaas, C. Muller, D. Schnorr, S. A. Loening, and K. Jung Interchangeability of Measurements of Total and Free Prostate-Specific Antigen in Serum with 5 Frequently Used Assay Combinations: An Update Clin. Chem., January 1, 2006; 52(1): 59 - 64. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
A. Semjonow, F. Oberpenning, C. Weining, M. Schon, B. Brandt, G. De Angelis, A. Heinecke, M. Hamm, P. Stieber, L. Hertle, et al. Do Modifications of Nonequimolar Assays for Total Prostate-specific Antigen Improve Detection of Prostate Cancer? Clin. Chem., August 1, 2001; 47(8): 1472 - 1475. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |