The impact of interlaboratory differences in Cystatin C assay measurement on Glomerular Filtration Rate estimation

Christine A. White, Andrew D Rule, Christine P. Collier, Ayub Akbari, John C Lieske, Nathalie Lepage, Steve Doucette, Greg A. Knoll

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

28 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background and objectives: Cystatin C (CysC) is a promising marker of GFR. Several equations have been derived to estimate GFR from its serum concentration. Heterogeneity in the performance of these equations exists in validation studies even when the same CysC assay from the same manufacturer is utilized. This study was designed to examine the differences in CysC and GFR estimation (eGFR) using Siemens' nephelometric immunoassay and the Mayo Clinic equation. The ability of the eGFRs to predict measured GFR was also examined. Design, setting, participants, & measurements: Ninety-seven split samples were sent to laboratories at Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario (CHEO) in Ottawa, Canada, and at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota. Results: The mean CHEO CysC was 0.17 mg/L (10%) lower than the mean Mayo Clinic CysC. Using the Mayo Clinic equation, the mean eGFR difference was 7.2 ml/min per 1.73 m 2 (15%). Approximately 36% of the results agreed within 10%, while 13% were discordant by greater than 30%. Larger absolute differences in mean eGFR between the two laboratories were found in the subgroup with CysC less than 1.41 mg/L as compared with the subgroup greater than 1.41 mg/L (9.5 versus 5.0 ml/min per 1.73 m 2). Correction of CHEO values to the Mayo Clinic did not improve GFR estimation. Conclusions: Significant differences in CysC measurement exist between laboratories using the same assay by the same manufacturer and these lead to clinically relevant differences in GFR estimation. This interlaboratory variability needs to be recognized when interpreting and comparing CysC and eGFR results.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)2150-2156
Number of pages7
JournalClinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology
Volume6
Issue number9
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 1 2011

Fingerprint

Cystatin C
Glomerular Filtration Rate
Ontario
Validation Studies
Immunoassay
Canada

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Nephrology
  • Transplantation
  • Epidemiology
  • Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine

Cite this

The impact of interlaboratory differences in Cystatin C assay measurement on Glomerular Filtration Rate estimation. / White, Christine A.; Rule, Andrew D; Collier, Christine P.; Akbari, Ayub; Lieske, John C; Lepage, Nathalie; Doucette, Steve; Knoll, Greg A.

In: Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology, Vol. 6, No. 9, 01.09.2011, p. 2150-2156.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

White, Christine A. ; Rule, Andrew D ; Collier, Christine P. ; Akbari, Ayub ; Lieske, John C ; Lepage, Nathalie ; Doucette, Steve ; Knoll, Greg A. / The impact of interlaboratory differences in Cystatin C assay measurement on Glomerular Filtration Rate estimation. In: Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology. 2011 ; Vol. 6, No. 9. pp. 2150-2156.
@article{e4648396530644519d1192b2e5c51575,
title = "The impact of interlaboratory differences in Cystatin C assay measurement on Glomerular Filtration Rate estimation",
abstract = "Background and objectives: Cystatin C (CysC) is a promising marker of GFR. Several equations have been derived to estimate GFR from its serum concentration. Heterogeneity in the performance of these equations exists in validation studies even when the same CysC assay from the same manufacturer is utilized. This study was designed to examine the differences in CysC and GFR estimation (eGFR) using Siemens' nephelometric immunoassay and the Mayo Clinic equation. The ability of the eGFRs to predict measured GFR was also examined. Design, setting, participants, & measurements: Ninety-seven split samples were sent to laboratories at Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario (CHEO) in Ottawa, Canada, and at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota. Results: The mean CHEO CysC was 0.17 mg/L (10{\%}) lower than the mean Mayo Clinic CysC. Using the Mayo Clinic equation, the mean eGFR difference was 7.2 ml/min per 1.73 m 2 (15{\%}). Approximately 36{\%} of the results agreed within 10{\%}, while 13{\%} were discordant by greater than 30{\%}. Larger absolute differences in mean eGFR between the two laboratories were found in the subgroup with CysC less than 1.41 mg/L as compared with the subgroup greater than 1.41 mg/L (9.5 versus 5.0 ml/min per 1.73 m 2). Correction of CHEO values to the Mayo Clinic did not improve GFR estimation. Conclusions: Significant differences in CysC measurement exist between laboratories using the same assay by the same manufacturer and these lead to clinically relevant differences in GFR estimation. This interlaboratory variability needs to be recognized when interpreting and comparing CysC and eGFR results.",
author = "White, {Christine A.} and Rule, {Andrew D} and Collier, {Christine P.} and Ayub Akbari and Lieske, {John C} and Nathalie Lepage and Steve Doucette and Knoll, {Greg A.}",
year = "2011",
month = "9",
day = "1",
doi = "10.2215/CJN.00130111",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "6",
pages = "2150--2156",
journal = "Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology",
issn = "1555-9041",
publisher = "American Society of Nephrology",
number = "9",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The impact of interlaboratory differences in Cystatin C assay measurement on Glomerular Filtration Rate estimation

AU - White, Christine A.

AU - Rule, Andrew D

AU - Collier, Christine P.

AU - Akbari, Ayub

AU - Lieske, John C

AU - Lepage, Nathalie

AU - Doucette, Steve

AU - Knoll, Greg A.

PY - 2011/9/1

Y1 - 2011/9/1

N2 - Background and objectives: Cystatin C (CysC) is a promising marker of GFR. Several equations have been derived to estimate GFR from its serum concentration. Heterogeneity in the performance of these equations exists in validation studies even when the same CysC assay from the same manufacturer is utilized. This study was designed to examine the differences in CysC and GFR estimation (eGFR) using Siemens' nephelometric immunoassay and the Mayo Clinic equation. The ability of the eGFRs to predict measured GFR was also examined. Design, setting, participants, & measurements: Ninety-seven split samples were sent to laboratories at Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario (CHEO) in Ottawa, Canada, and at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota. Results: The mean CHEO CysC was 0.17 mg/L (10%) lower than the mean Mayo Clinic CysC. Using the Mayo Clinic equation, the mean eGFR difference was 7.2 ml/min per 1.73 m 2 (15%). Approximately 36% of the results agreed within 10%, while 13% were discordant by greater than 30%. Larger absolute differences in mean eGFR between the two laboratories were found in the subgroup with CysC less than 1.41 mg/L as compared with the subgroup greater than 1.41 mg/L (9.5 versus 5.0 ml/min per 1.73 m 2). Correction of CHEO values to the Mayo Clinic did not improve GFR estimation. Conclusions: Significant differences in CysC measurement exist between laboratories using the same assay by the same manufacturer and these lead to clinically relevant differences in GFR estimation. This interlaboratory variability needs to be recognized when interpreting and comparing CysC and eGFR results.

AB - Background and objectives: Cystatin C (CysC) is a promising marker of GFR. Several equations have been derived to estimate GFR from its serum concentration. Heterogeneity in the performance of these equations exists in validation studies even when the same CysC assay from the same manufacturer is utilized. This study was designed to examine the differences in CysC and GFR estimation (eGFR) using Siemens' nephelometric immunoassay and the Mayo Clinic equation. The ability of the eGFRs to predict measured GFR was also examined. Design, setting, participants, & measurements: Ninety-seven split samples were sent to laboratories at Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario (CHEO) in Ottawa, Canada, and at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota. Results: The mean CHEO CysC was 0.17 mg/L (10%) lower than the mean Mayo Clinic CysC. Using the Mayo Clinic equation, the mean eGFR difference was 7.2 ml/min per 1.73 m 2 (15%). Approximately 36% of the results agreed within 10%, while 13% were discordant by greater than 30%. Larger absolute differences in mean eGFR between the two laboratories were found in the subgroup with CysC less than 1.41 mg/L as compared with the subgroup greater than 1.41 mg/L (9.5 versus 5.0 ml/min per 1.73 m 2). Correction of CHEO values to the Mayo Clinic did not improve GFR estimation. Conclusions: Significant differences in CysC measurement exist between laboratories using the same assay by the same manufacturer and these lead to clinically relevant differences in GFR estimation. This interlaboratory variability needs to be recognized when interpreting and comparing CysC and eGFR results.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=80052575301&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=80052575301&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.2215/CJN.00130111

DO - 10.2215/CJN.00130111

M3 - Article

C2 - 21799146

AN - SCOPUS:80052575301

VL - 6

SP - 2150

EP - 2156

JO - Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology

JF - Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology

SN - 1555-9041

IS - 9

ER -