Evaluation of the Comparability of Wantai Wan200+ Instrument with Routine Laboratory Assays for 21 Different Analytes

TL;DR

This study compared the Wantai Wan200+ instrument with other lab methods for 21 analytes and found it to be comparable for most, though some showed suboptimal results.

Contribution

The study provides a comprehensive evaluation of the Wantai Wan200+ instrument's performance against established methods for multiple analytes.

Findings

An excellent comparability profile was found for 11 analytes, such as total PSA.

Ten analytes showed suboptimal comparability, indicating potential issues with consistency.

Biological variation metrics were used to assess the clinical relevance of observed biases.

Abstract

Background: We compared the performance of 21 different assays performed by the Wantai Wan200+ (Wantai BioPharm, Beijing, China) with respect to other methods in use at the University Hospital of Padova (AOPD), Italy. Methods: The plasma (P) or serum (S) of 5027 leftover samples, collected from May to Sept 2023, was either analyzed or frozen at −20 °C. Beckman DXI800 (DXI), Roche Cobas 8000 e801 (RC), Snibe Maglumi 4000 plus (SM), DiaSorin Liaison XL (DL) and Binding Site Optilite (BS) equipment were used at the AOPD. P-procalcitonin (PCT), DXI; P-Troponin I (TnI), DXI; S-CA125, DXI; S-free PSA (f-PSA), DXI; S-total PSA (t-PSA), DXI; S-IL6, SM; P-Troponin T (TnT), RC; P-NT-proBNP, RC; P-Neuron-Specific Enolase (NSE), RC; S-CA15-3, DL; S-CA19-9, DL; S-AFP, DL; and S-CEA, DL were tested in fresh samples. P-Myoglobin (Myo), DXI; P-Cyfra21-1, RC; S-β2 microglobulin (B2MIC), BS; S-HE4, SM; S-PGI, SM; S-PGII, SM; S-CA72-4, SM; and S-CA50, SM were analyzed in frozen and thawed samples. Bland–Altman (BA), Passing–Bablok (PB) and Cohen’s Kappa (CKa) metrics were used as statistics. Results: An excellent comparability profile was found for 11 analytes. For example, the t-PSA CKa was 0.94 (95%CI: 0.90 to 0.98), and the PB slope and intercept were 1.02 (95%CI: 0.99 to 1.03) and 0.02 (95%CI: 0.01 to 0.03), respectively; the BA bias was 2.25 (95%CI: −0.43 to 4.93). Ten tested measurands demonstrated a suboptimal comparability profile. Biological variation in EFLM (EuBIVAS) performance specifications was evaluated to assess the clinical relevance of measured biases. Conclusions: Evaluation of the Wantai Wan200+’s performance suggests that between-method differences did not exceed the calculated bias. Metrological traceability may influence the comparisons obtained for some measurands.

Figures