방사면역측정법과 화학발광면역측정법간의 숙련도 비교평가

The Evaluation of Proficiency Test between Radioimmunoassay and Chemiluminescence Immunoassay

Purpose: To establish accurate external quality assurance (EQA) test, cross institutional and modality tests were performed using WHO certificated reference material (CRM) and same pooled patients serum. Materials and Methods: Accuracy and precision were evaluated using CRM and pooled patients' serum for AFP, CEA, PSA, CA 125, CA 19-9, T3, T4, Tg, TSH. To evaluate the accuracy and precision, recover test and coefficient variation were measured. RIA test were performed in major 5 RIA laboratory and EIA (CLIA) test were done in 5 major EIA laboratory. same sample of CRM and pooled serum were delivered to each laboratory. Results: In 2009, mean precision of total tumor marker of RIA was 14.8±4.2% and that of EIA(CLIA) was 19.2±6.9%. In 2010, mean precision of 5 tumor marker and T3, T4, Tg, TSH was 13.8±6.1% in RIA and 15.5±7.7% in EIA (CLIA). There was no significant difference between RIA and EIA. In RIA, the coefficient variations (CV) of AFP, CEA, PSA, CA 125, T3, T4, TSH were within 20%. The CV of CA 19-9 was over 20% but there was no significant difference with EIA (CLIA) (p=0.345). In recovery test using CRM, AFP, PSA, T4, TSH showed 92~103% of recovery in RIA. In recovery test using commercial material, CEA, CA 125, CA 19-9 showed relatively lower recovery than CRM but there was no significant difference between RIA and EIA (CLIA). Conclusion: By evaluating the precision and accuracy of each test, EQA test could more accurately measured the quality of each test and performance of laboratory.