Related Experiment Video
Updated: Mar 30, 2026
Procedure and Key Optimization Strategies for an Automated Capillary Electrophoretic-based Immunoassay Method
Published on: September 10, 2017
Method evaluation of pepsinogen I/II assay based on chemiluminescent immunoassays and comparison with other test
Eun-Jung Cho1, Hyun-Ki Kim1, Tae-Dong Jeong1
1Department of Laboratory Medicine, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Background:
Serum pepsinogen (PG) I and the PG I/PG II ratio have been used for atrophic gastritis (AG) diagnosis for decades. Low levels of PG I and/or PG I/PG II are closely related to AG and predict the risk of gastric cancer. We evaluated the performance of the chemiluminescent immunoassay-based Architect Pepsinogen I/II assay.
Methods:
The evaluation consisted of determination of the precision, linearity, limit of blank (LoB), limit of detection (LoD) and method comparison with Eiken and Biohit assays.
Results:
The total CVs were below 5% for both PG I and PG II. Acceptable linearity was observed for PG I and PG II in their respective reportable ranges. The PG I LoB was 0.317ng/mL and the PG II LoB was 0.418ng/mL, and LoDs were 0.412ng/mL and 0.497ng/mL, respectively. Correlation analysis indicated that results of the Architect assay were comparable to those of the Eiken and Biohit assays, but the three methods lead to different estimations of the cancer risk.
Conclusion:
The overall analytical performance of Architect Pepsinogen I/II assay is acceptable for the detection of patients with suspected AG. The categorization results of gastric cancer risk showed some difference among test methods suggesting the need for harmonization among the methods from vendors.
