Skip to main content
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

Analytical verification and comparative assessment of the new Atellica IM high-sensitivity prostate specific antigen assay

  • EMAIL logo , , , and
Published/Copyright: December 23, 2025
Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM)
From the journal Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM) Volume 64 Issue 4

Abstract

Objectives

Despite standardization efforts, significant inter-assay variability persists among prostate-specific antigen (PSA) tests, impacting prostate cancer (PCa) diagnosis and monitoring. We aimed to evaluate the analytical and clinical performance of the newly developed Atellica IM high-sensitivity PSA (hsPSA Atellica) assay compared with established PSA assays.

Methods

A total of 236 serum samples from healthy individuals and patients with or without PCa were analyzed using the hsPSA Atellica assay and four FDA-approved PSA assays: Hybritech Access, Architect, Atellica, and Cobas. Analytical performance included limit of detection (LOD), limit of quantification (LOQ), linearity, inter-assay precision, and hook effect. Method comparison was performed using Passing-Bablok regression, Bland-Altman analysis, and kappa index concordance.

Results

The hsPSA Atellica assay demonstrated a LOD of 0.01 μg/L and LOQ of 0.028 μg/L (CV: 3.2 %, accuracy: 115 %). Precision was maintained across concentrations, with CVs of 4.2 %, 3.8 %, and 2.4 % at low, medium, and high levels of PSA. Strong agreement was observed with the compared tests, particularly with Cobas and Hybritech PSA assays. Diagnostic sensitivity and specificity at the 4 μg/L clinical decision threshold were 98 % and 35 %, respectively. In 87 samples between 3 and 10 μg/L, concordance between hsPSA Atellica and Hybritech reached 96.6 % (κ=0.82). The assay remained accurate up to PSA concentrations of 13,311 μg/L, showing minimal hook effect.

Conclusions

The hsPSA Atellica assay shows excellent analytical sensitivity and strong agreement with established assays. To our knowledge, this is the first published evaluation of this assay, supporting its clinical utility in both PCa diagnosis and follow-up.

Keywords: PSA; prostate cancer; tumor marker; immunoassay; method comparison; harmonization
Corresponding author: Xavier Filella, Biochemistry and Molecular Genetics Department, Hospital Clinic, Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain, E-mail:

  1. Research ethics: The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the hospital (reference number: HCB/2019/0194). The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki (as revised in 2013).

  2. Informed consent: Not applicable. Not required by the Ethics Committee of our hospital for this study, because the PSA measurement was performed on leftover serum samples from patients who had been requested PSA for healthcare purposes.

  3. Author contributions: All authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this manuscript and approved its submission. Xavier Filella was responsible for the conception and overall direction of the manuscript. He led the statistical analysis of the results and drafted the initial version of the manuscript, which was subsequently reviewed and revised by all authors. He also took primary responsibility for the final version of the manuscript. Cristina González-Escribano selected samples, performed PSA measurements across different platforms, entered the data into the database, and contributed to the preparation of the study protocol that was submitted to the hospital’s ethics committee. Núria Medina-Esteban participated in the selection of samples and performed PSA measurements across different platforms. She prepared the figures. Esther Fernandez-Galan and María Rodríguez-García contributed to the statistical analysis of the results and drafted the Materials and Methods section of the manuscript. They contributed to the interpretation of the results.

  4. Use of Large Language Models, AI and Machine Learning Tools: None declared.

  5. Conflict of interest: Xavier Filella, as the principal investigator, entered into a contract with Siemens Diagnostics for the conduct of this study. All other authors state no conflict of interest.

  6. Research funding: None declared.

  7. Data availability: The data supporting this study are not publicly available due to privacy restrictions. However, they may be accessed through the corresponding author upon reasonable request under a data sharing agreement and approval from our hospital’s Ethics Committee.

  8. Role of the sponsor: The sponsor – Siemens Diagnostics –provided the necessary reagents for conducting this study and contributed funds to support the technical staff required to carry out the analyses, but had no role in study design, data analysis, interpretation, or manuscript preparation.

References

1. Lilja, H, Ulmert, D, Vickers, AJ. Prostate-specific antigen and prostate cancer: prediction, detection and monitoring. Nat Rev Cancer 2008;8:268–78. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrc2351.Search in Google Scholar

2. Stephan, C, Klaas, M, Muller, C, Schnorr, D, Loening, SA, Jung, K. Interchangeability of measurements of total and free prostate-specific antigen in serum with 5 frequently used assay combinations: an update. Clin Chem 2006;52:59–64. https://doi.org/10.1373/clinchem.2005.059170.Search in Google Scholar

3. Stephan, C. WHO standardization of PSA tests: clinical consequences. Nat Rev Urol 2009;6:303–5. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrurol.2009.94.Search in Google Scholar

4. Boegemann, M, Arsov, C, Hadaschik, B, Herkommer, K, Imkamp, F, Nofer, JR, et al.. Discordant prostate specific antigen test results despite WHO assay standardization. Int J Biol Markers 2018;33:275–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/1724600818754750.Search in Google Scholar

5. Stamey, TA. Second stanford conference on international standardization of prostate-specific antigen immunoassays: september 1 and 2, 1994. Urology 1995;45:173–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/0090-4295(95)80001-8.Search in Google Scholar

6. Forde, JC, Marignol, L, Blake, O, McDermott, T, Grainger, R, Crowley, VE, et al.. Standardization of assay methods reduces variability of total PSA measurements: an Irish study. BJU Int 2012;110:644–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410x.2011.10923.x.Search in Google Scholar

7. Ferraro, S, Bussetti, M, Rizzardi, S, Braga, F, Panteghini, M. Verification of harmonization of serum total and free prostate-specific antigen (PSA) measurements and implications for medical decisions. Clin Chem 2021;67:543–53. https://doi.org/10.1093/clinchem/hvaa268.Search in Google Scholar

8. Filella, X, Wijngaard, R, González-Escribano, C, Laguna, J, Rodríguez, M, Bedini, JL. Analytical verification and method comparison of atellica IM prostate specific antigen test. Clin Chem Lab Med 2021;59:S94–98.Search in Google Scholar

9. CLSI. User verification of precision and estimation of bias; approved guideline–third edition. CLSI document EP15-A3. Wayne, PA: Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute; 2014.Search in Google Scholar

10. Semjonow, A, Brandt, B, Oberpenning, F, Roth, S, Hertle, L. Discordance of assay methods creates pitfalls for the interpretation of prostate-specific antigen values. Prostate Suppl 1996;7:3–16. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1097-0045(1996)7+<3::aid-pros1>3.3.co;2-5.10.1002/(SICI)1097-0045(1996)7+<3::AID-PROS1>3.3.CO;2-5Search in Google Scholar

11. Jansen, FH, Roobol, M, Bangma, CH, van Schaik, RH. Clinical impact of new prostate-specific antigen WHO standardization on biopsy rates and cancer detection. Clin Chem 2008;54:1999–2006. https://doi.org/10.1373/clinchem.2007.102699.Search in Google Scholar

12. Stephan, C, Bangma, C, Vignati, G, Bartsch, G, Lein, M, Jung, K, et al.. 20-25% Lower concentrations of total and free prostate-specific antigen (PSA) after calibration of PSA assays to the WHO reference materials--analysis of 1098 patients in four centers. Int J Biol Markers 2009;24:65–9. https://doi.org/10.5301/jbm.2009.1349.Search in Google Scholar

13. Foj, L, Filella, X, Alcover, J, Augé, JM, Escudero, JM, Molina, R. Variability of assay methods for total and free PSA after WHO standardization. Tumour Biol 2014;35:1867–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13277-013-1249-2.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

14. Benamour, M, Brouwers, P, Nevraumont, A, Roy, T, Bayart, JL. Double trouble: unmasking two hook effects on Siemens Atellica® – total PSA and total hCG assays. Pract Lab Med 2024;39:e00366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plabm.2024.e00366.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

15. Ferraro, S, Biganzoli, G, Bussetti, M, Castaldi, S, Biganzoli, EM, Plebani, M. Managing the impact of inter-method bias of prostate specific antigen assays on biopsy referral: the key to move towards precision health in prostate cancer management. Clin Chem Lab Med 2022;61:142–53. https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2022-0874.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

16. Carobene, A, Guerra, E, Locatelli, M, Cucchiara, V, Briganti, A, Aarsand, AK, et al.. Biological variation estimates for prostate specific antigen from the European Biological Variation Study; consequences for diagnosis and monitoring of prostate cancer. Clin Chim Acta 2018;486:185–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cca.2018.07.043.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

17. Cornford, P, Tilki, D, van den Bergh, RCN. EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-ISUP-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer 2025. Available from: https://uroweb.org/guidelines/prostate-cancer.Search in Google Scholar

18. Schröder, FH, Hugosson, J, Roobol, MJ. ERSPC Investigators. Screening and prostate-cancer mortality in a randomized European study. N Engl J Med 2009;360:1320–8.10.1056/NEJMoa0810084Search in Google Scholar PubMed

19. Van Poppel, H, Hogenhout, R, Albers, P, van den Bergh, RCN, Barentsz, JO, Roobol, MJ. Early detection of prostate cancer in 2020 and beyond: facts and recommendations for the European Union and the European Commission. Eur Urol 2021;79:327–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2020.12.010.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

20. Myrtle, JF, Klimley, PG, Ivor, LP, Bruni, JF. Clinical utility of prostate specific antigen in the management of prostate cancer. Advances in Cancer Diagnostics. San Diego: Hybritech, Inc; 1986.Search in Google Scholar

21. Catalona, WJ, Hudson, MA, Scardino, PT, Richie, JP, Ahmann, FR, Flanigan, RC, et al.. Selection of optimal prostate specific antigen cutoffs for early detection of prostate cancer: receiver operating characteristic curves. J Urol 1994;152:2037–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-5347(17)32300-5.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

22. Tilki, D, Chen, MH, Wu, J, Huland, H, Graefen, M, Mohamad, O, et al.. Prostate-Specific antigen level at the time of salvage therapy after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer and the risk of death. J Clin Oncol 2023;41:2428–35. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.22.02489.Search in Google Scholar

23. Filella, X, Izquierdo, L, Mases, J, Youngren, KA, Escolar, G. Discrepancies in PSA values among laboratories: the case of a traveling patient. Clin Chem Lab Med 2023;61:e179–81. https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2023-0043.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

24. Sokoll, LJ, Zhang, Z, Chan, DW, Reese, AC, Bivalacqua, TJ, Partin, AW, et al.. Do ultrasensitive prostate specific antigen measurements have a role in predicting long-term biochemical recurrence-free survival in men after radical prostatectomy? J Urol 2016;195:330–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2015.08.080.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

25. Filella, X, Albaladejo, MD, Allué, JA, Castaño, MA, Morell-Garcia, D, Ruiz, MÀ, et al.. Prostate cancer screening: guidelines review and laboratory issues. Clin Chem Lab Med 2019;57:1474–87. https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2018-1252.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

Supplementary Material

This article contains supplementary material (https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2025-1431).

Received: 2025-09-16
Accepted: 2025-12-07
Published Online: 2025-12-23
Published in Print: 2026-03-26

© 2025 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Editorial
  3. Reshaping laboratory medicine through technological advances
  4. Reviews
  5. Capillary blood in core laboratories: current and future challenges
  6. Artificial intelligence and machine learning in thrombosis and hemostasis: a scoping review of clinical and laboratory applications, challenges, and future directions
  7. Opinion Papers
  8. Hierarchy of reference interval models: advancing laboratory data interpretation
  9. Reimagining External Quality Assessment for precision medicine: a perspective from biochemistry laboratories
  10. Science, Quality and Value of Laboratory Medicine
  11. Guidelines and Recommendations
  12. Recommendations from the IFCC Working Group on Laboratory Errors and Patient Safety for the Global Adoption of an Essential Quality Indicators Panel in Laboratory Medicine
  13. Addressing the silent epidemic of recreational nitrous oxide use: a position, call to action and recommendations by the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine Committee on Biological Markers of Nitrous Oxide Abuse
  14. General Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine
  15. Assessment of drone transport for biological samples: a real-world experience at a tertiary hospital
  16. Impact of an autonomous delivery robot on sample turnaround time in a clinical laboratory: an early evaluation of first implementation
  17. Implementation of an automated alert system of critical results in hospitalized and emergency patients
  18. Comparison of blood sample quality and test results between robotic and manual venipuncture: a pilot study
  19. At-home blood collection for clinical chemistry analyses in a kidney transplant population: a feasibility study
  20. Clinical validation of a DBS-based LC-MS/MS method for 25-hydroxyvitamin D: from lab sampling to home sampling
  21. Comparative analysis of three platforms for serum NfL quantification in healthy controls and MS patients
  22. Uracil in plasma: comparison of two in-house-developed LC-MS/MS methods
  23. Assessment for potential bias in multiplexed IL-10 and TNF-α from plex count
  24. Hematology and Coagulation
  25. A specific-neonatal hemolysis correction model for accurate potassium assessment in blood samples with in vitro hemolysis
  26. Cancer Diagnostics
  27. Analytical verification and comparative assessment of the new Atellica IM high-sensitivity prostate specific antigen assay
  28. Extended verification of an automated MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry system for high throughput serum M-protein measurement
  29. Cardiovascular Diseases
  30. Performance evaluation of a new high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T assay: hs-cTnT (CLIA) assay
  31. Infectious Diseases
  32. Prognostic value of suPAR in sepsis: a potential tool to support patient management in the Emergency Department
  33. Contribution of SuPAR for patients in a situation of uncertainty downstream of emergencies
  34. One copy in one-pot for rapid and accurate SFTSV testing by LAC12b-2M
  35. Corrigendum
  36. Impact of delayed centrifugation on the stability of 32 biochemical analytes in blood samples collected in serum gel tubes and stored at room temperature
  37. Letters to the Editor
  38. Combining the calibrator uncertainty and the long-term measurement uncertainty? A comment to the ISO/TS 20914 guideline
  39. Comparative analysis of plasma p-tau217 immunoassays: challenges for standardization and harmonization
  40. Shift happens: the utility of external quality assessment data in evaluating folate lot changes
  41. Response to: Shift happens: The utility of external quality assessment data in evaluating folate lot changes. doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2025-1569
  42. Innovative closed tube protocol reveals a super critical early preanalytical phase of whole blood glucose stability in routine matrices
  43. Spun citrate samples as a suitable alternative for platelet measurement. Is recollection necessary? A preliminary study
  44. Mass spectrometry reveals limitations of serum immunofixation electrophoresis in monitoring lambda light chain myeloma
  45. A study of the performance of different methods for measuring serum lithium
  46. Congress Abstracts
  47. 47th Annual Conference of the Association for Clinical Biochemists in Ireland (ACBI)
https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2025-1431
Keywords for this article
PSA; prostate cancer; tumor marker; immunoassay; method comparison; harmonization

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Editorial
  3. Reshaping laboratory medicine through technological advances
  4. Reviews
  5. Capillary blood in core laboratories: current and future challenges
  6. Artificial intelligence and machine learning in thrombosis and hemostasis: a scoping review of clinical and laboratory applications, challenges, and future directions
  7. Opinion Papers
  8. Hierarchy of reference interval models: advancing laboratory data interpretation
  9. Reimagining External Quality Assessment for precision medicine: a perspective from biochemistry laboratories
  10. Science, Quality and Value of Laboratory Medicine
  11. Guidelines and Recommendations
  12. Recommendations from the IFCC Working Group on Laboratory Errors and Patient Safety for the Global Adoption of an Essential Quality Indicators Panel in Laboratory Medicine
  13. Addressing the silent epidemic of recreational nitrous oxide use: a position, call to action and recommendations by the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine Committee on Biological Markers of Nitrous Oxide Abuse
  14. General Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine
  15. Assessment of drone transport for biological samples: a real-world experience at a tertiary hospital
  16. Impact of an autonomous delivery robot on sample turnaround time in a clinical laboratory: an early evaluation of first implementation
  17. Implementation of an automated alert system of critical results in hospitalized and emergency patients
  18. Comparison of blood sample quality and test results between robotic and manual venipuncture: a pilot study
  19. At-home blood collection for clinical chemistry analyses in a kidney transplant population: a feasibility study
  20. Clinical validation of a DBS-based LC-MS/MS method for 25-hydroxyvitamin D: from lab sampling to home sampling
  21. Comparative analysis of three platforms for serum NfL quantification in healthy controls and MS patients
  22. Uracil in plasma: comparison of two in-house-developed LC-MS/MS methods
  23. Assessment for potential bias in multiplexed IL-10 and TNF-α from plex count
  24. Hematology and Coagulation
  25. A specific-neonatal hemolysis correction model for accurate potassium assessment in blood samples with in vitro hemolysis
  26. Cancer Diagnostics
  27. Analytical verification and comparative assessment of the new Atellica IM high-sensitivity prostate specific antigen assay
  28. Extended verification of an automated MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry system for high throughput serum M-protein measurement
  29. Cardiovascular Diseases
  30. Performance evaluation of a new high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T assay: hs-cTnT (CLIA) assay
  31. Infectious Diseases
  32. Prognostic value of suPAR in sepsis: a potential tool to support patient management in the Emergency Department
  33. Contribution of SuPAR for patients in a situation of uncertainty downstream of emergencies
  34. One copy in one-pot for rapid and accurate SFTSV testing by LAC12b-2M
  35. Corrigendum
  36. Impact of delayed centrifugation on the stability of 32 biochemical analytes in blood samples collected in serum gel tubes and stored at room temperature
  37. Letters to the Editor
  38. Combining the calibrator uncertainty and the long-term measurement uncertainty? A comment to the ISO/TS 20914 guideline
  39. Comparative analysis of plasma p-tau217 immunoassays: challenges for standardization and harmonization
  40. Shift happens: the utility of external quality assessment data in evaluating folate lot changes
  41. Response to: Shift happens: The utility of external quality assessment data in evaluating folate lot changes. doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2025-1569
  42. Innovative closed tube protocol reveals a super critical early preanalytical phase of whole blood glucose stability in routine matrices
  43. Spun citrate samples as a suitable alternative for platelet measurement. Is recollection necessary? A preliminary study
  44. Mass spectrometry reveals limitations of serum immunofixation electrophoresis in monitoring lambda light chain myeloma
  45. A study of the performance of different methods for measuring serum lithium
  46. Congress Abstracts
  47. 47th Annual Conference of the Association for Clinical Biochemists in Ireland (ACBI)
Downloaded on 12.5.2026 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/cclm-2025-1431/html?lang=en
Scroll to top button