Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Case Study
  • Published:

Inappropriate treatment of prostate cancer caused by heterophilic antibody interference

Abstract

Background A 58-year-old man, without any personal or familial risk factors for prostate cancer, visited his primary care physician for a first routine prostate cancer screening with a serum PSA test.

Investigations Serum PSA test, digital rectal examination, prostate biopsy and pathological analysis, repeat serum PSA tests and pathological re-evaluation, abdominal tomodensitometry, whole-body bone scan and prostatic MRI.

Diagnosis Highly elevated serum PSA indicative of advanced prostate cancer at high risk for metastasis.

Management The patient was started on androgen deprivation therapy with goserelin acetate and bicalutamide. At 3 months, he was asymptomatic, his prostate was atrophic on digital rectal examination and he had suppressed serum testosterone. However, his serum PSA level remained highly elevated in the absence of any radiographic evidence of advanced cancer. A repeat PSA test using a different assay returned a negligible PSA concentration; evaluation with blocker agents revealed the presence of heterophilic antibody interference with the original PSA assay. The patient was rediagnosed as having a likely low-grade prostate adenocarcinoma; androgen deprivation therapy was stopped, and he was deemed a candidate for watchful waiting. At 15 months, his serum PSA level remained stable at a low level, and prostatic dynamic MRI showed no sign of tumor in the prostate or in the pelvis.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: Mechanism of heterophilic antibody interference with a PSA assay.

References

  1. Villers A et al. (2003) Summary of the standards, options and recommendations for the management of patients with nonmetastatic prostate cancer (2001). Br J Cancer 89 (Suppl 1): S50–S58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Partin AW et al. (2001) Contemporary update of prostate cancer staging nomograms (Partin Tables) for the new millennium. Urology 58: 843–848

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. D'Amico AV et al. (1998) The combination of preoperative prostate specific antigen and postoperative pathological findings to predict prostate specific antigen outcome in clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol 160: 2096–2101

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Rotmensch S and Cole LA (2000) False diagnosis and needless therapy of presumed malignant disease in women with false-positive human chorionic gonadotropin concentrations. Lancet 355: 712–715

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Ward G et al. (1997) Heterophilic antibodies remain a problem for the immunoassay laboratory. Am J Clin Pathol 108: 417–421

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Weber TH et al. (1990) Endogenous interference in immunoassays in clinical chemistry: a review. Scand J Clin Lab Invest Suppl 201: 77–82

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Hunter WM and Budd PS (1980) Circulating antibodies to ovine and bovine immunoglobulin in healthy subjects: a hazard for immunoassays. Lancet 2: 1136

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Levinson SS and Miller JJ (2002) Towards a better understanding of heterophile (and the like) antibody interference with modern immunoassays. Clin Chim Acta 325: 1–15

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Ismail AA (2005) A radical approach is needed to eliminate interference from endogenous antibodies in immunoassays. Clin Chem 51: 25–26

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Trojan A et al. (2004) False-positive human serum chorionic gonadotropin in a patient with a history of germ cell cancer. Oncology 66: 336–338

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Sturgeon CM et al. (2008) National Academy of Clinical Biochemistry Laboratory Medicine Practice Guidelines for use of tumor markers in clinical practice: quality requirements. Clin Chem 54: e1–e10

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Safa AA et al. (1998) Undetectable serum prostate-specific antigen associated with metastatic prostate cancer: a case report and review of the literature. Am J Clin Oncol 21: 323–326

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Morgan BR and Tarter TH (2001) Serum heterophilic antibodies interfere with prostate specific antigen test and result in over treatment in a patient with prostate cancer. J Urol 166: 2311–2312

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Camacho T et al. (2002) Falsely increased prostate-specific antigen concentration attributed to heterophilic antibodies. Ann Clin Biochem 39: 160–161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Berglund RK et al. (2008) Pathological upgrading and up staging with immediate repeat biopsy in patients eligible for active surveillance. J Urol 180: 1964–1967

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Olivier Cussenot.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Henry, N., Sebe, P. & Cussenot, O. Inappropriate treatment of prostate cancer caused by heterophilic antibody interference. Nat Rev Urol 6, 164–167 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1038/ncpuro1317

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/ncpuro1317

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing