Endocrinology and Metabolism (Sep 2016)

Comparison of Thyroglobulin Measurements Using Three Different Immunoassay Kits: A BRAMHS Tg-Plus RIA Kit, a BRAMHS hTg Sensitive Kryptor Kit, and a Beckman Coulter ACCESS Immunoassay Kit

  • Mijin Kim,
  • Min Ji Jeon,
  • Won Gu Kim,
  • Jong Jin Lee,
  • Jin-Sook Ryu,
  • Eun-Jung Cho,
  • Dae-Hyun Ko,
  • Woochang Lee,
  • Sail Chun,
  • Won-Ki Min,
  • Tae Yong Kim,
  • Young Kee Shong,
  • Won Bae Kim

DOI
https://doi.org/10.3803/EnM.2016.31.3.462
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 31, no. 3
pp. 462 – 468

Abstract

Read online

BackgroundSecond-generation thyroglobulin immunometric assays (Tg-IMAs) have been developed with improved sensitivity. Our aim was to compare the diagnostic value of Tg-IMA measurements using a Kryptor (BRAHMS AG) kit (Tg-K) and an ACCESS (Beckman Coulter) kit (Tg-A) with that of the first-generation Tg measurement using a Tg-plus (BRAHMS AG) kit (Tg+).MethodsWe enrolled 82 differentiated thyroid cancer patients who underwent total thyroidectomy with radioactive iodine remnant ablation and who underwent diagnostic whole body scan using recombinant human thyroid stimulating hormone (rhTSH). The Tg+, Tg-K, and Tg-A were measured before rhTSH administration during levothyroxine treatment (suppressed Tg) from the same sample. Serum Tg+ was measured after rhTSH stimulation (stimulated Tg).ResultsSuppressed Tg+ was more significantly correlated with suppressed Tg-K (R2=0.919, P<0.001) than with suppressed Tg-A (R2=0.536, P<0.001). The optimal cut-off values of suppressed Tg+, Tg-K, and Tg-A for predicting stimulated Tg+ of 1 ng/mL were 0.3, 0.2, and 0.2 ng/mL, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of suppressed Tg+ were 67%, 100%, and 90%, respectively; those of suppressed Tg-K were 83%, 90%, and 88%; those of suppressed Tg-A were 96%, 82%, and 87%, respectively. The positive predictive and negative predictive values of Tg+ were 100% and 87%, respectively; those of Tg-K were 79% and 92%; and those of Tg-A were 73% and 98%.ConclusionWe could not clearly demonstrate which kit had better diagnostic performance after comparison of first-generation Tg measurements with Tg-IMA measurements. Also, there were kit-to-kit variations between Tg-IMA kits. Suppressed Tg measured by Tg-IMA was insufficient to completely substitute for a stimulated Tg measurement.

Keywords