化学发光法和放射免疫法检测TPA的比较研究  

Comparison research on CLIA and IRMA in determination of TPA in serum

作　　者：王堃[1] 喻晶[1] 雷旦生[1] 

机构地区：[1]湖北省肿瘤医院检验科,湖北武汉430079

出　　处：《中国卫生检验杂志》2015年第6期846-847,851,共3页Chinese Journal of Health Laboratory Technology

摘　　要：目的分析和评价化学发光法(CLIA)与放射免疫法(IRMA)在组织多肽抗原(TPA)检测中的应用价值。方法采用化学发光免疫分析法(CLIA)和放射免疫分析法(IRMA)检测157例肺癌患者和65例健康体检对照组血清组织多肽抗原(TPA)水平。所测得的数据进行统计学比较,并采用受试者工作特征(ROC)曲线进行分析。结果化学发光法和放射免疫法的批内、批间精密度均较好,差异无统计学意义;2种方法检测TPA诊断肺癌的阳性率差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);对TPA的检测结果总符合率为88.7%(P<0.01),相关系数r为0.92。2种方法检测TPA对相关肿瘤诊断的ROC曲线下面积分别为0.675、0.728。结论 CLIA与IRMA对TPA的检测结果均有良好的一致性,均能较好地满足临床需求。Objective To analyze and evaluate the clinical application of chemiluminescent immunoassay（ CLIA） and immunoradiometricassay（ IRMA） in determining tissue polypeptide antigen（ TPA）. Methods Serum TPA levels of 157 cases lung cancer patients and 65 healthy persons were tested by IRMA and CLIA,the received data were conducted for statistic coparison and analyzed with receiver operating characteristic（ ROC） curve. Results The precision within and between groups of IRMA and CLIA were all good,there was no significant difference. There were no significant differences in the positive rates of TPA by the 2 methods（ P〉 0. 05）. The total determination results of TPA high total coincidence rate（ 88. 7%）. The correlation coefficient was 0. 92,and areas under ROC curves of TPA were 0. 675 and 0. 728,respectively. Conclusion Both CLIA and IRMA showed good coincidence in detecting TPA. And two methods can meet the clinical needs well.

关 键 词：化学发光法 放射免疫法 组织多肽抗原 方法学比较 

分 类 号：R446[医药卫生—诊断学]