Home Identifying risk in the use of tumor markers to improve patient safety
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

Identifying risk in the use of tumor markers to improve patient safety

  • Elvira Eva Moreno-Campoy EMAIL logo , Francisco J. Mérida-De la Torre ORCID logo , Francisco Martos-Crespo ORCID logo and Mario Plebani ORCID logo
Published/Copyright: March 8, 2016
Become an author with De Gruyter Brill
Submit Manuscript Author Information
Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM)
From the journal Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM) Volume 54 Issue 12

Abstract

Background:

Tumor markers (TM) are a routine test that are not always used well, and can lead to unnecessary additional tests, which are not without risks for the patients. So, to implement appropriate strategies to improve the adequate use of TM and, therefore, improve patient safety, is required to analyze the use of TM, identifying risks and establishing if there are differences in their use as a function of their utility.

Methods:

The study was a descriptive, longitudinal, retrospective and systematic study in the area covered by the University Hospital of Padua. In the follow-up 2-year study, 23,059 analytical requests of TM, corresponding to 14,728 patients, were analyzed. For the level of statistical significance it applies an approximation of the normal law (Z statistic) and χ2-test.

Results:

Only 9196 requests (39.88%) out of a total of 23,059 on 5080 patients with neoplastic diseases have been classified as adecuate according to current guidelines. The number of requests per patient was variable (1.57±1.35). In patients with neoplastic diseases this increased to 1.80±1.68. The mean of number of TM per request was 2.4±1.73. The analysis showed an association between the number of requests and the type of marker used.

Conclusions:

The use of TM is variable, mainly of the follow-up markers, when they are used as screening. This inappropriate use, minimizes their utility favoring erroneous interpretations and increases the risk of damage to the patient. So it is essential to implement safe practices in the use of TM.

Keywords: biomarkers tumor; clinical medicine; effectiveness; patient safety; risk assessment; tumor markers; utility
Corresponding author: Elvira Eva Moreno-Campoy, Pharmacy Unit, Health Management Area Serranía de Málaga, Carretera de El Burgo, km 1 29400 Ronda Málaga, Málaga, Spain, Phone: +34677904018, E-mail: ; and University of Málaga, Málaga, Spain

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

  2. Research funding: None declared.

  3. Employment or leadership: None declared.

  4. Honorarium: None declared.

  5. 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.

References

1. Nieva VF, Sorra J. Safety culture assessment: a tool for improving patient safety in healthcare organizations. Qual Saf Health Care 2003;12:ii17–23.10.1136/qhc.12.suppl_2.ii17Search in Google Scholar

2. Weaver SJ, Lubomksi LH, Wilson RF, Pfoh ER, Martinez KA, Dy SM. Promoting a culture of safety as a patient safety strategy: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med 2013;158:369–74.10.7326/0003-4819-158-5-201303051-00002Search in Google Scholar

3. Terol E, Agra Y. Patient safety strategy of the National Health System (Estrategia en seguridad del paciente del Sistema Nacional de Salud). Med Clin (Barc) 2008;131:1–3.10.1016/S0025-7753(08)76454-6Search in Google Scholar

4. World Health Organization WHO Regional Office for Europe. A brief synopsis on patient safety [Internet] 2010; [consulted on 17 June 2015]. Available at http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0015/111507/E93833.pdf.Search in Google Scholar

5. European Union Network for Patient Safety and Quality of Care:PaSQ [Internet] c2012; [consulted on 17 June 2015]. Available at: www.pasq.eu.Search in Google Scholar

6. The Joint Commission [internet] c2015; [consulted on 17 June 2015]. Available at: http://www.jointcommission.org/topics/patient_safety.aspx.Search in Google Scholar

7. European Commission. Report from the Commision to the Council on the basis of Member States’ reports on the implementation of the Council Recommendation (2009/C 151/01) on patient safety, including the prevention and control of healthcare associated infections, 2012; [consulted on 17 June 2015]. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/health/patient_safety/docs/council_2009_report_en.pdf.Search in Google Scholar

8. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Making health caresafer II: An updated critical analysis of the evidence for patient safety practices. Evidence Report No.211. AHRQ Publication No.13-E001-EF. Rockville, 2013.Search in Google Scholar

9. Plebani. M. The CCLM contribution to improvements in quality and patient safety. Clin Chem Lab Med 2013;51:39–46.10.1515/cclm-2012-0094Search in Google Scholar

10. Mérida FJ, Moreno EE. Fundamentals of Patient Safety. Analysis and strategies in the clinical laboratory (Fundamentos de Seguridad del Paciente. Análisis y estrategias en el laboratorio clínico). Madrid: Editorial Panamericana, 2011.Search in Google Scholar

11. Wachter RM. Understanding Patient Safety, 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2012.Search in Google Scholar

12. Plebani M. The journey toward quality and patient safety in laboratory medicine continues. N Am J Med Sci 2014;6:229–30.10.4103/1947-2714.132942Search in Google Scholar

13. Agra-Varela Y, Fernández-Maíllo M, Rivera-Ariza S, Sáiz-Martínez-Acitorez I, Casal-Gómez J, Palanca-Sánchez I, et al. European union network for Patient Safety and Quality of Care (PASQ). Development and preliminary results in Europe and in the Spanish National Health System. Rev Calid Asist 2015;30:95–102.10.1016/j.cali.2015.01.010Search in Google Scholar

14. Sölétormos G, Duffy MJ, Hayes DF, Sturgeon CM, Barak V, Bossuyt PM, et al. Design of tumor biomarker-monitoring trials: a proposal by the European group on tumor markers. Clin Chem 2013;59:52–9.10.1373/clinchem.2011.180778Search in Google Scholar

15. Carolyn Vachani RN. Patient Guide to Tumor Markers. [Internet]. 2013. Oncolink c2015; [consulted on 17 june 2015]. Available at: http://www.oncolink.org/treatment/article.cfm?id=296.Search in Google Scholar

16. Harris L, Fritsche H, Norton ML, Ravdin P, Taube S, Somerfield MR, et al. American society of clinical oncology 2007 update of recommendations for the use of tumor markers in breast cancer [review]. J Clin Oncol 2007;25:5287–312.10.1200/JCO.2007.14.2364Search in Google Scholar

17. Sturgeon CM. Tumor markers in the laboratory: closing the guideline-practice gap. Clin Biochem 2001;34:353–9.10.1016/S0009-9120(01)00199-0Search in Google Scholar

18. Martín A, Alonso L, Ordiz I, Vázquez J, Vizoso F. Clinical utility of serum tumor markers (Utilidad clínica de los marcdores tumorales séricos). Aten Primaria 2003;32:227–39.10.1016/S0212-6567(03)79257-9Search in Google Scholar

19. Sharma S. Tumor markers in clinical practice: general principles and guidelines. Indian J Med Paediatr Oncol 2009;30:1–8.10.4103/0971-5851.56328Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

20. Sturgeon CM, Lai LC, Duffy MJ. Serum tumour markers: how to order and interpret them. Clinical review. Br Med J 2009;339:852–58. (b3527) [consulted on 27-04-2015] Available at: http://www.bmj.com/content/339/bmj.b3527.10.1136/bmj.b3527Search in Google Scholar PubMed

21. Perkins GL, Slater ED, Sanders GK, Prichard JG. Serum tumor markers. Am Fam Physician 2003;68:1075–82.Search in Google Scholar

22. Duffy MJ. Tumor markers in clinical practice: a review focusing on common solid cancers. Med Princ Pract 2013;22:4–11.10.1159/000338393Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

23. Sturgeon C. Practice guidelines for tumor marker use in the clinic. Clin Chem 2002;48:1151–9.10.1093/clinchem/48.8.1151Search in Google Scholar

24. Henry NL, Hayes DF. Uses and abuses of tumor markers in the diagnosis, monitoring and treatment of primary and metastatic breast cancer. The Oncologist 2006;11:541–52.10.1634/theoncologist.11-6-541Search in Google Scholar PubMed

25. Merida FJ [internet]. Clinical Practice 399/Safe use of tumor markers. PaSQ. European Union Network for Patient Safety and Quality of Care; [consulted on 28-04-2015] Available at: http://www.pasq.eu/Wiki/GPDisplayPracticeDetails.aspx?prid=399.Search in Google Scholar

26. Fernández A. Martínez A, Gaspar MJ, Filella X, Molina R, Ballesta AM. Serum tumor markers (Marcadores tumorales serológicos). Química Clínica 2007;26:77–85.Search in Google Scholar

27. Han SN, Lotgerink A, Gziri MM, Van Calsteren K, Hanssens M, Amant F. Physiologic variations of serum tumor markers in gynecological malignancies during pregnancy: a systematic review. BMC Med 2012;10:86.10.1186/1741-7015-10-86Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

28. McShane LM, Hayes DF. Publication of tumor marker research results: the necessity for complete and transparent reporting. J Clin Oncol 2012;30:4223–32.10.1200/JCO.2012.42.6858Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

29. NCI [Internet]. Instituto nacional del cáncer de Estados Unidos. Tumor markers (Marcadores tumorales) [updated 7-12-2011; consulted on 28-04-2015]. Available at: http://www.cancer.gov/espanol/recursos/hojas-informativas/deteccion-diagnostico/marcadores-de-tumores.Search in Google Scholar

30. Molina R, Filella X, Augé JM, Escudero JM. Clinical utility of tumor markers [Current status and future prospects III] (Utilidad clínica de los marcadores tumorales [Estado actual y perspectivas de futuro III]. Roche Diagnostics, 2011.Search in Google Scholar

31. EGTM. General information on tumor marker [Internet]. European Group on Tumor Markers c2014; [consulted on 28-04-2015]. Available at: http://www.egtm.eu/professionals/general_info_tumor_markers/.Search in Google Scholar

32. ASCO. Practice Guidelines [Internet]. American Society of Clinical Oncology c2015; [consulted on 28-04-2015]. Available at: http://www.instituteforquality.org/practice-guidelines.Search in Google Scholar

33. Fleisher M, Dnistrian AM, Sturgeon CM, Lamerz R, Wittliff JL. Practice guidelines and recommendations for use of tumor markers in the clinic. In: Diamandis EP, editor. Tumor markers: physiology, pathobiology, technology, and clinical applications. Washington, DC: AACC Press, 2003:33–63.Search in Google Scholar

34. Sturgeon CM, Hoffman BR, Chan DW, Ch’ng SL, Hammond E, Hayes DF, et al. National academy of clinical biochemistry laboratory medicine practice guidelines for use of tumor markers in clinical practice: quality requirements. Clin Chem 2008;54: e1–10.10.1373/clinchem.2007.094144Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

35. Vaidyanathan K, Vasudevan DM. Organ specific tumor markers: what’s new? Indian J Clin Biochem 2012;27:110–20.10.1007/s12291-011-0173-8Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

36. Kantrowitz M. Cancerpoint.com [Internet]. False Positives and False Negatives in Tumor Marker Blood Tests c2005–2009; [consulted on 28-04-2015]. Available at: http://www.kantrowitz.com/cancerpoints/tumormarkerfalsepositives.html.Search in Google Scholar

37. Duffy MJ, McGing P. Guidelines for the use of tumor markers. ACBI Association of Clinical Biochemists in Ireland editor, 4th edition, 2010; [consulted on 28-04-2015]. Available at: http://www.acbi.ie/Article.asp?pID=231.Search in Google Scholar

38. Wade J, Rosario DJ, Macefield RC, Avery KN, Salter CE, Goodwin ML, et al. Psychological impact of prostate biopsy: physical symptoms, anxiety, and depression. J Clin Oncol 2013;31:4235–41.10.1200/JCO.2012.45.4801Search in Google Scholar PubMed

39. Fowler FJ, Barry MJ, Walker-Corkery B, Caubet JF, Bates DW, Lee JM, et al. The impact of a suspicious prostate biopsy on patients’ psychological, socio-behavioral, and medical care outcomes. J Gen Intern Med 2006;21:715–21.10.1111/j.1525-1497.2006.00464.xSearch in Google Scholar

40. Bast RC Jr, Radvin P, Hayes DF, Bates S, Fritsche H Jr, Jessup JM, et al. 2000 update of recommendations for the use of tumor markers in breast and colorectal cancer: clinical practice guidelines of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. J Clin Oncol 2001;19:1865–78.10.1200/JCO.2001.19.6.1865Search in Google Scholar

41. Altman DG, McShane LM, Sauerbrei W, Taube SE. Reporting recommendations for tumor marker prognostic studies (REMARK): explanation an elaboration. BMC Med 2012;10:51.10.1186/1741-7015-10-51Search in Google Scholar

42. Mérida FJ, Moreno EE, Martos F. Impact of the implementation of a protocol for the adequate and safe use of tumor markers (Impacto de la aplicación de un protocolo para el uso adecuado y seguro de marcadores tumorales). Med Clin (Barc) 2015;145:526–8.10.1016/j.medcli.2015.04.031Search in Google Scholar

43. AACC. Cáncer de prostate. Diagnóstico Precoz [internet]. Asociación Española contra el Cáncer c2015; [consulted on 02-07-2015]. Available at: https://www.aecc.es/sobreelcancer/cancerporlocalizacion/cancerdeprostata/Paginas/diagnosticoprecoz.aspx.Search in Google Scholar

44. Thompson IM, Tangen CM. Prostate cancer: uncertainty and a way forward. N Engl J Med 2012;367:270–1.10.1056/NEJMe1205012Search in Google Scholar

45. Prostate cancer: send away the PSA? Lancet 2012;380:307.10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61232-XSearch in Google Scholar

Received: 2015-8-5
Accepted: 2016-1-26
Published Online: 2016-3-8
Published in Print: 2016-12-1

©2016 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Editorial
  3. Biomarkers, inflammation and cancer: where to go?
  4. Review
  5. Analysis, detection and quantitation of mixed cryoglobulins in HCV infection: brief review and case examples
  6. Mini Reviews
  7. Calcitonin measurement and immunoassay interference: a case report and literature review
  8. Exosomal non-coding RNAs: a promising cancer biomarker
  9. Opinion Paper
  10. Towards a new paradigm in laboratory medicine: the five rights
  11. EFLM Recommendation
  12. Recommendation for the review of biological reference intervals in medical laboratories
  13. IFCC Position Paper
  14. Assuring the quality of interpretative comments in clinical chemistry
  15. General Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine
  16. The effect of centrifugation speed and time on pre-analytical platelet activation
  17. An assessment of clinical laboratory performance for the determination of manganese in blood and urine
  18. Evaluation of antiphospholipid antibody assays using latent class analysis to address the lack of a reference standard
  19. Evaluation of the hypochromic erythrocyte and reticulocyte hemoglobin content provided by the Sysmex XE-5000 analyzer in diagnosis of iron deficiency erythropoiesis
  20. Cancer Diagnosis
  21. Identifying risk in the use of tumor markers to improve patient safety
  22. Association between Echinococcus granulosus infection and cancer risk – a pilot study in Cyprus
  23. Dynamic change of the systemic immune inflammation index predicts the prognosis of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma after curative resection
  24. Aberrant methylation of tumour suppressor genes WT1, GATA5 and PAX5 in hepatocellular carcinoma
  25. Cardiovascular Diseases
  26. High homocysteine and low folate plasma concentrations are associated with cardiovascular events but not bleeding during warfarin treatment
  27. Hemolysis and Coagulation
  28. Hemolysis rates in blood samples: differences between blood collected by clinicians and nurses and the effect of phlebotomy training
  29. Letters to the Editor
  30. Harmonisation of the laboratory testing process: need for a coordinated approach
  31. Pseudohyperkalemia due to severe leukocytosis: case presentation
  32. When obtaining a blood sample from the right arm was not the right thing to do: a case of elevated parathyroid hormone levels 27 years after thyroidectomy
  33. Raising awareness of assay compatibility with heparinized plasma
  34. Improved protocol for extraction of genomic DNA from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue samples without the use of xylene
  35. Effect of refrigeration, centrifugation, acidification, heat treatment and storage on urine calcium, magnesium and phosphate
  36. Letter in response to: Identifying risk in the use of tumor markers to improve patient safety
  37. Letter to the Editor in reply to Dayyani and Morgenstern’s comment on the article “Identifying risk in the use of tumor markers to improve patient safety”
  38. Level of red cell distribution width is affected by various factors
  39. Red blood cell distribution: an index without additional cost in estimating the prognosis of acute pancreatitis
  40. Testing of total 25(OH)vitamin D: agreement and discrepant cases between Cobas® 8000 and Liaison® XL methods
  41. Expression profiling and ontology analysis of circulating long non-coding RNAs in septic acute kidney injury patients
https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2015-0760
Keywords for this article
biomarkers tumor; clinical medicine; effectiveness; patient safety; risk assessment; tumor markers; utility

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Editorial
  3. Biomarkers, inflammation and cancer: where to go?
  4. Review
  5. Analysis, detection and quantitation of mixed cryoglobulins in HCV infection: brief review and case examples
  6. Mini Reviews
  7. Calcitonin measurement and immunoassay interference: a case report and literature review
  8. Exosomal non-coding RNAs: a promising cancer biomarker
  9. Opinion Paper
  10. Towards a new paradigm in laboratory medicine: the five rights
  11. EFLM Recommendation
  12. Recommendation for the review of biological reference intervals in medical laboratories
  13. IFCC Position Paper
  14. Assuring the quality of interpretative comments in clinical chemistry
  15. General Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine
  16. The effect of centrifugation speed and time on pre-analytical platelet activation
  17. An assessment of clinical laboratory performance for the determination of manganese in blood and urine
  18. Evaluation of antiphospholipid antibody assays using latent class analysis to address the lack of a reference standard
  19. Evaluation of the hypochromic erythrocyte and reticulocyte hemoglobin content provided by the Sysmex XE-5000 analyzer in diagnosis of iron deficiency erythropoiesis
  20. Cancer Diagnosis
  21. Identifying risk in the use of tumor markers to improve patient safety
  22. Association between Echinococcus granulosus infection and cancer risk – a pilot study in Cyprus
  23. Dynamic change of the systemic immune inflammation index predicts the prognosis of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma after curative resection
  24. Aberrant methylation of tumour suppressor genes WT1, GATA5 and PAX5 in hepatocellular carcinoma
  25. Cardiovascular Diseases
  26. High homocysteine and low folate plasma concentrations are associated with cardiovascular events but not bleeding during warfarin treatment
  27. Hemolysis and Coagulation
  28. Hemolysis rates in blood samples: differences between blood collected by clinicians and nurses and the effect of phlebotomy training
  29. Letters to the Editor
  30. Harmonisation of the laboratory testing process: need for a coordinated approach
  31. Pseudohyperkalemia due to severe leukocytosis: case presentation
  32. When obtaining a blood sample from the right arm was not the right thing to do: a case of elevated parathyroid hormone levels 27 years after thyroidectomy
  33. Raising awareness of assay compatibility with heparinized plasma
  34. Improved protocol for extraction of genomic DNA from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue samples without the use of xylene
  35. Effect of refrigeration, centrifugation, acidification, heat treatment and storage on urine calcium, magnesium and phosphate
  36. Letter in response to: Identifying risk in the use of tumor markers to improve patient safety
  37. Letter to the Editor in reply to Dayyani and Morgenstern’s comment on the article “Identifying risk in the use of tumor markers to improve patient safety”
  38. Level of red cell distribution width is affected by various factors
  39. Red blood cell distribution: an index without additional cost in estimating the prognosis of acute pancreatitis
  40. Testing of total 25(OH)vitamin D: agreement and discrepant cases between Cobas® 8000 and Liaison® XL methods
  41. Expression profiling and ontology analysis of circulating long non-coding RNAs in septic acute kidney injury patients
Sign up now to receive a 20% welcome discount
Institutional Access
How does access work?
Have an idea on how to improve our website?
Please write us.
© 2025 De Gruyter Brill
Downloaded on 7.9.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/cclm-2015-0760/pdf
Scroll to top button