Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM)

Published in Association with the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM)

Editor-in-Chief: Plebani, Mario

Ed. by Gillery, Philippe / Greaves, Ronda / Lackner, Karl J. / Lippi, Giuseppe / Melichar, Bohuslav / Payne, Deborah A. / Schlattmann, Peter


IMPACT FACTOR 2018: 3.638

CiteScore 2018: 2.44

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 1.191
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 1.205

Online
ISSN
1437-4331
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 57, Issue 8

Issues

Human chorionic gonadotropin suspected heterophile interference investigations in immunoassays: a recommended approach

Jose C. Jara-Aguirre / Nikola A. Baumann / Darci R. Block / Alicia Algeciras-Schimnich
Published Online: 2019-02-12 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2018-1142

Abstract

Background

Heterophile antibody (HAb) interferences in immunoassays can cause falsely elevated hCG concentrations leading to incorrect diagnosis and treatments options. When results are not consistent with the clinical findings, hCG HAb interference investigation may be requested by the physician. A retrospective evaluation of the frequency of HAb interference was performed among cases of physician-requested investigations and the effectiveness of commercially available blocking reagents to detect HAb interference in two immunoassay systems was evaluated.

Methods

One hundred and thirteen physician requests for hCG HAb investigation from 2008 to 2017 were reviewed. The primary method used to measure hCG was the Beckman Coulter Access Total βhCG (2008–2010) and the Roche Elecsys HCG+β (2014–2017). HAb investigation included measurement by two immunoassays before and after treatment of samples with heterophile blocking reagents and serial dilution studies.

Results

Five cases of HAb and HAb-like interference were identified. The interference frequency was 6.7% for the Beckman assay and 2.9% for the Roche assay. The presence of HAb was detected using heterophile blocking reagents and an alternative method in three cases. The other two cases were detected due to discrepant results with an alternative method and non-linear serial dilutions (HAb-like).

Conclusions

HAb interference was observed in the Beckman and the Roche assays. The heterophile blocking reagents failed to detect 40% of interference cases. Blocking reagents should not solely be used for these investigations. Multiple strategies including the use of serial dilutions and using an alternative platform are critical when troubleshooting interferences in hCG immunoassays.

Keywords: hCG; heterophile antibody; heterophile blocking reagents; immunoassay interference; phantom hCG

References

  • 1.

    Berger P, Sturgeon C. Pregnancy testing with hCG – future prospects. Trends Endocrinol Metab 2014;25:637–48.PubMedWeb of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 2.

    American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologist. Avoiding inappropriate clinical decision based of false positive human chorionic gonadotropin test results. ACOG Committee opinion No 278. Obstet Gynecol 2002;100:1057–9.Google Scholar

  • 3.

    Stenman U, Alfthan H, Hotakainen K. Human chorionic gonadotropin in cancer. Clin Biochem 2004;37:549–61.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 4.

    Emerson JF, Lai KY. Endogenous antibody interferences in immunoassays. Lab Med 2013;44:69–73.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 5.

    Garcia-Gonzalez E, Aremendia M, Alvarez-Ballano D, Trincado P, Rello L. Serum sample containing endogenous antibodies interfering with multiple hormone immunoassays. Laboratory strategies to detect interference. Pract Lab Med 2016;4:1–10.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 6.

    Klee GG. Interferences in hormone immunoassays. Clin Lab Med 2004;24:1–18.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 7.

    Levinson SS, Miller JJ. Towards a better understanding of heterophile (and the like) antibody interference with modern immunoassays. Clin Chim Acta 2002;325:1–15.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 8.

    Ward G, Simpson A, Boscato L, Hickman PE. The investigation of interferences in immunoassay. Clin Biochem 2017;50:1306–11.PubMedCrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • 9.

    Kricka LJ. Human anti-animal antibody interferences in immunological assays. Clin Chem 1999;45:942–56.PubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 10.

    Sturgeon CM, Berger P, Bidart JM, Birken S, Burns C, Norman RJ, et al. Differences in recognition of the 1st WHO international reference reagents for hCG-related isoforms by diagnostic immunoassays for human chorionic gonadotropin. Clin Chem 2009;55:1484–91.CrossrefPubMedWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • 11.

    Soares DG, Millot F, Lacroix I, Lotz JP. Heterophile antibody interference led to unneeded chemotherapy in a testicular cancer patient. Urol Case Rep 2016;9:1–3.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • 12.

    Bolstad N, Warren DJ, Nustad K. Heterophilic antibody interference in immunometric assays. Best Pract Res Clin Endocrinol Metab 2013;27:647–61.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 13.

    Preissner CM, Dodge LA, O’Kane DJ, Singh RJ, Grebe SK. Prevalence of heterophilic antibody interference in eight automated tumor marker immunoassays. Clin Chem 2005;51:208–10.PubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 14.

    Butler SA, Cole LA. Use of heterophilic antibody blocking agent (HBT) in reducing false-positive hCG results. Clin Chem 2001;47:1332–3.PubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 15.

    Ismail AA, Walker PL, Barth JH, Lewandowski KC, Jones R, Burr WA. Wrong biochemistry results: two case reports and observational study in 5310 patients on potentially misleading thyroid-stimulating hormone and gonadotropin immunoassay results. Clin Chem 2002;48:2023–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 16.

    Cole LA. Human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) and hyperglycosylated hCG, seven semi-independent critical molecules: a review. J Mol Oncol Res 2017;1:22–44.Google Scholar

About the article

Corresponding author: Alicia Algeciras-Schimnich, PhD, DABCC, FACC, Mayo Clinic, Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Division of Clinical Biochemistry and Immunology, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN 55905, USA


Received: 2018-10-23

Accepted: 2019-01-18

Published Online: 2019-02-12

Published in Print: 2019-07-26


Author contributions: All the authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this submitted manuscript and approved submission.

Research funding: None declared.

Employment or leadership: None declared.

Honorarium: None declared.

Competing interests: The funding organization(s) played no role in the study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; or in the decision to submit the report for publication.


Citation Information: Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM), Volume 57, Issue 8, Pages 1192–1196, ISSN (Online) 1437-4331, ISSN (Print) 1434-6621, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2018-1142.

Export Citation

©2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in