JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for ACB-CLIN-CHEM-GEN Archives


ACB-CLIN-CHEM-GEN Archives

ACB-CLIN-CHEM-GEN Archives


ACB-CLIN-CHEM-GEN@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ACB-CLIN-CHEM-GEN Home

ACB-CLIN-CHEM-GEN Home

ACB-CLIN-CHEM-GEN  March 2009

ACB-CLIN-CHEM-GEN March 2009

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Progesterone levels in PUL

From:

Jonathan Middle <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Jonathan Middle <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Mon, 30 Mar 2009 15:11:58 +0100

Content-Type:

multipart/mixed

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (76 lines) , f2007_Prog_interp.pdf (76 lines) , 20_Ap3_PROG_GCMS_2008_PART.pdf (76 lines)

Hi
 
Current immunoassay methods do not agree with one another, yet manufacturers may claim that they are all  standardised using GCMS.  Whether they are metrologically traceable to a certified progesterone standard depends on which elements of the traceability chain they have employed in the process.  Furthermore, if analytical specificity is not optimal, then traceability is not possible and results will not be comparable. 
 
There is only one way properly to assess these methods.  
 
Create a panel of off-the-clot, single donation, unprocessed, native human sera with a range of endogenous progesterone values; have their progesterone concentrations assigned by ID-GCMS by a member of the steroid reference laboratory network; run a spit sample comparison with the method in question.  If the slope is 1.0 then the method is correctly calibrated. If the scatter about the regression line is small, specificity is adequate.  If the intercept is small, baseline security is good.
 
When I have done this with a limited number of UK NEQAS pools, it is possible to see clear method differences.  My last exercise (published in my 2008 Annual review) is attached.
 
I do not distribute pregnancy sera with high levels, but the following data may also be helpful: 
 
At distribution 348 I distributed a pool with an ALTM of  40.7 nmol/L (CV 10.9%)
The overall range of results (excluding outliers) was 25 - 58 nmol/L
 
Trimmed method means were:
Siemens Immulite 2000/2500:  33.0 nmol/L (n=34, CV 8.2%)
Roche Elecsys/E170 Modular: 38.9 nmol/L (n=83, CV 5.7%)
Abbott Architect: 40.9 nmol/L (n=54, CV=4.9%)
Siemens ADVIA Centaur: 44.0 nmol/L (n=82, CV=6.7%)
Beckman Access: 47.0 nmol/L (n=26, CV=10.6)
 
This shows that any clinical cut offs must be made method-specific or mis-classification may occur.  
 
I had a poster on progesterone interpretation at Focus2007 - see attachment - which showed what labs were doing in terms of use of progesterone in assessment of fertility.
 
Hope this helps.
 
Jonathan
 
 
 
Dr Jonathan Middle
Deputy Director, Birmingham Quality (UK NEQAS)
Organiser UK NEQAS for Steroid Hormones
0121 414 7300, fax 0121 414 1179

________________________________

From: Clinical biochemistry discussion list on behalf of Avril Wayte
Sent: Mon 30/03/2009 14:22
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Progesterone levels in PUL


Dear colleagues
In 2006 I asked a question on the mailbase regarding the usefulness of progesterone in women with pregnancy of unknown location (PUL), and received a number of responses. I am asking the same question again, as the topic has reared it's head again at our Trust.
 
It seems to be accepted in theory that lower progesterone levels in these women suggests a non-viable pregnancy. However, my question relates to what the cut-offs for progesterone should be. We use the Roche E170 progesterone method, and I cannot find any literature that provides my answer. I have spoken to Roche at length in 2006 (and waiting for a current response) and they tell me that their method is standardised against the ID-GC/MS method so that all standarised methods should use the same cut-offs. Unfortunately, the papers that I have come across do not go into this sort of detail, and all seem to use different ranges!
 
I wonder if any of you E170 users out there are using progesterone for this purpose, and whether you would be prepared to share details of your practice with me?
 
In anticipation
Avril
 
Avril Wayte
Consultant Biochemist
Ysbyty Gwynedd
Bangor
North Wales
 

------ACB discussion List Information--------
This is an open discussion list for the academic and clinical
community working in clinical biochemistry.
Please note, archived messages are public and can be viewed
via the internet. Views expressed are those of the individual and
they are responsible for all message content.
ACB Web Site
http://www.acb.org.uk
List Archives
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/ACB-CLIN-CHEM-GEN.html
List Instructions (How to leave etc.)
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

April 2024
March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager