# 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.

## Key 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.