Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment
Published in: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 1/2018

01-01-2018 | Epidemiology

Concordance analysis of paired cancer antigen (CA) 15-3 and 27.29 testing

Authors: David C. Lin, Jonathan R. Genzen

Published in: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment | Issue 1/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

Cancer antigens (CA) 15-3 and 27.29 are used in the clinical management of many breast cancer patients. Given that immunoassays for CA 15-3 and CA 27.29 target epitopes on the same glycoprotein—Mucin 1 (MUC1)—the present analysis was conducted to evaluate the potential concordance of tumor marker results when both tests were ordered by providers on the same specimens.

Methods

A retrospective limited dataset of paired CA 15-3 (Roche Diagnostics) and CA 27.29 (Siemens Diagnostics) test results was obtained from a national clinical reference laboratory. Concordance according to reference interval (RI) status and percent (%) change between consecutive test results was analyzed.

Results

37,652 paired results from 12,470 distinct patients were obtained. The correlation between CA 15-3 and CA 27.29 results was high (correlation coefficient: Pearson, 0.967), although across the dataset a significant difference between CA 15-3 and CA 27.29 results was observed (P < 0.05). RI concordance between CA 15-3 and CA 27.29 results was observed in 93.7% of pairs (35,280 of 37,652). Correlation was also observed in the % change of CA 15-3 and CA 27.29 results between consecutive specimens for individual patients. Using doubling or halving thresholds (i.e., 100% increase or 50% decrease), concordance in % change was observed between CA 15-3 and CA 27.29 in approximately 90% of cases. Individual patient results trended similarly across both markers over time.

Conclusion

While generally concordant, CA 15-3 and CA 27.29 results should not be used interchangeably. The present report provides no evidence for added value in performing both tests routinely for individual patients.
Literature
1.
Bon GG, von Mensdorff-Pouilly S, Kenemans P, van Kamp GJ, Verstraeten RA, Hilgers J, Meijer S, Vermorken JB (1997) Clinical and technical evaluation of ACS BR serum assay of MUC1 gene-derived glycoprotein in breast cancer, and comparison with CA 15-3 assays. Clin Chem 43:585–593PubMed
2.
Klee GG, Schreiber WE (2004) MUC1 gene-derived glycoprotein assays for monitoring breast cancer (CA 15-3, CA 27.29, BR): are they measuring the same antigen? Arch Pathol Lab Med 128:1131–1135PubMed
3.
4.
Sturgeon CM, Duffy MJ, Stenman UH, Lilja H, Brunner N, Chan DW, Babaian R, Bast RC Jr, Dowell B, Esteva FJ et al (2008) National Academy of Clinical Biochemistry laboratory medicine practice guidelines for use of tumor markers in testicular, prostate, colorectal, breast, and ovarian cancers. Clin Chem 54:e11–e79CrossRefPubMed
5.
Sturgeon CM, Hoffman BR, Chan DW, Ch’ng SL, Hammond E, Hayes DF, Liotta LA, Petricoin EF, Schmitt M, Semmes OJ et al (2008) National Academy of Clinical Biochemistry Laboratory Medicine Practice Guidelines for use of tumor markers in clinical practice: quality requirements. Clin Chem 54:e1–e10CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
6.
Al-azawi D, Kelly G, Myers E, McDermott EW, Hill AD, Duffy MJ, Higgins NO (2006) CA 15-3 is predictive of response and disease recurrence following treatment in locally advanced breast cancer. BMC Cancer 6:220CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
7.
Harris L, Fritsche H, Mennel R, Norton L, Ravdin P, Taube S, Somerfield MR, Hayes DF, Bast RC, American Society of Clinical O (2007) American Society of Clinical Oncology 2007 update of recommendations for the use of tumor markers in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 25:5287–5312CrossRefPubMed
8.
Van Poznak C, Somerfield MR, Bast RC, Cristofanilli M, Goetz MP, Gonzalez-Angulo AM, Hicks DG, Hill EG, Liu MC, Lucas W et al (2015) Use of biomarkers to guide decisions on systemic therapy for women with metastatic breast cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline. J Clin Oncol 33:2695–2704CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
9.
Duffy MJ, Evoy D, McDermott EW (2010) CA 15-3: uses and limitation as a biomarker for breast cancer. Clin Chim Acta 411:1869–1874CrossRefPubMed
10.
11.
Basuyau JP, Leroy M, Brunelle P (2001) Determination of tumor markers in serum. Pitfalls and good practice. Clin Chem Lab Med 39:1227–1233CrossRefPubMed
12.
CA 15-3 II Package Insert. 2011-6, V15. Roche Diagnostics: Indianapolis
13.
BR Assay for CA 27.29 Package Insert. 10630988, Rev. C. 08/2011. Siemens Diagnostics: Tarrytown
14.
Pignata S, Cannella L, Leopardo D, Bruni GS, Facchini G, Pisano C (2011) Follow-up with CA125 after primary therapy of advanced ovarian cancer: in favor of continuing to prescribe CA125 during follow-up. Ann Oncol 22(Suppl 8):viii40–viii44CrossRefPubMed
15.
Duffy MJ (2001) Biochemical markers in breast cancer: which ones are clinically useful? Clin Biochem 34:347–352CrossRefPubMed
16.
Owusu C, Harris L (2015) Tumor markers in older patients with early breast cancer: why are we still doing useless tests? J Clin Oncol 33:136–137CrossRefPubMed
17.
Hayes DF, Zurawski VR Jr, Kufe DW (1986) Comparison of circulating CA15-3 and carcinoembryonic antigen levels in patients with breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 4:1542–1550CrossRefPubMed
18.
Tondini C, Hayes DF, Gelman R, Henderson IC, Kufe DW (1988) Comparison of CA15-3 and carcinoembryonic antigen in monitoring the clinical course of patients with metastatic breast cancer. Cancer Res 48:4107–4112PubMed
19.
Soletormos G, Schioler V, Nielsen D, Skovsgaard T, Dombernowsky P (1993) Interpretation of results for tumor markers on the basis of analytical imprecision and biological variation. Clin Chem 39:2077–2083PubMed
20.
Kenemans P, Yedema CA, Bon GG, von Mensdorff-Pouilly S (1993) CA 125 in gynecological pathology–a review. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 49:115–124CrossRefPubMed
21.
Soletormos G, Duffy MJ, Othman Abu Hassan S, Verheijen RH, Tholander B, Bast RC Jr, Gaarenstroom KN, Sturgeon CM, Bonfrer JM, Petersen PH et al (2016) Clinical use of cancer biomarkers in epithelial ovarian cancer: updated guidelines from the European Group on Tumor Markers. Int J Gynecol Cancer 26:43–51CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Concordance analysis of paired cancer antigen (CA) 15-3 and 27.29 testing
Authors
David C. Lin
Jonathan R. Genzen
Publication date
01-01-2018
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment / Issue 1/2018
Print ISSN: 0167-6806
Electronic ISSN: 1573-7217
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-017-4513-0

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 1/2018 Go to the issue

Clinical trial

Registry study to assess hair loss prevention with the Penguin Cold Cap in breast cancer patients receiving chemotherapy

Clinical trial

Tumor and serum DNA methylation in women receiving preoperative chemotherapy with or without vorinostat in TBCRC008

Epidemiology

Obesity, physical activity, and breast cancer survival among older breast cancer survivors in the Cancer Prevention Study-II Nutrition Cohort

Clinical trial

Impact of histopathology, tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, and adjuvant chemotherapy on prognosis of triple-negative breast cancer

Letter to the Editor

A frameshift mutation in BRCA1 leads to hereditary breast and ovarian cancer in one part of a family and to familial pancreatic cancer in another

Review

Molecular profile of atypical hyperplasia of the breast
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Watch now

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras
Prof. Fabrice Barlesi
Developed by: Springer Medicine
Image Credits