Rita Passerini

Dr. Rita Passerini


Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

23Years (2004-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
1 August 2012 in American Journal of Clinical Pathology
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
RPRita Passerini
Rita Passerini
MCMaria C. Cassatella
Maria C. Cassatella
SBSara Boveri
Sara Boveri
MSMichela Salvatici
Michela Salvatici
DRDavide Radice
Davide Radice
MSMaria T. Sandri
Maria T. Sandri
We evaluated CA19-9 as a marker of various malignancies and compared the results of 2 commercial immunoassays. The Abbott ARCHITECT i2000 and Roche c

1 January 2007 in Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM)
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
RPRita Passerini
Rita Passerini
DRDaniela Riggio
Daniela Riggio
MSMichela Salvatici
Michela Salvatici
LZLaura Zorzino
Laura Zorzino
DRDavide Radice
Davide Radice
MSMaria Teresa Sandri
Maria Teresa Sandri
CA 19-9 is a marker principally related to pancreatic and gall bladder cancer. Although its determination has no value in screening for these malignancies, it is used in post-operative monitoring and during chemotherapeutic treatment of confirmed disease. Measurements during follow-up must be comparable and must be performed with standard, validated methods. We compared four routinely used analytical systems for CA 19-9 determination: the Architect i2000 and AxSYM systems from Abbott Laboratories, the Elecsys 1010 from Roche Diagnostics, and the KRYPTOR system from Brahms Diagnostics. We evaluated the analytical performance of the four systems and compared measurements of CA 19-9 values, which covered the whole analytical range. The analytical performance and accuracy of the four systems were fairly good, but Passing-Bablok regression and mountain plots showed significant differences in CA 19-9 values measured with the four platforms. Our data indicate that during tumor follow-up, the use of the same system is appropriate to avoid the risk of a variation due to the method rather than the disease. Moreover, whenever a change in analytical equipment is required, careful analysis of CA 19-9 results must be undertaken.

21 July 2021 in Cancers
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
Anna Daniela IacoboneAnna Daniela Iacobone
Anna Daniela Iacobone
DRDavid Radice
David Radice
MSmaria teresa sandri
maria teresa sandri
EPEleonora petra Preti
Eleonora petra Preti
MGMaria Elena Guerrieri
Maria Elena Guerrieri
Fabio BottariFabio Bottari
Fabio Bottari
To evaluate the significance of HPV persistence as a predictor for the development of CIN2+ recurrence and the impact of multiple genotypes and of HPV 16/18 on recurrence risk. A prospective cohort observational study was carried out at the European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy, from December 2006 to December 2014. A total of 408 women surgically treated by excisional procedure for pre-neoplastic and neoplastic cervical lesions were enrolled. HPV test was performed at baseline and at first follow-up visit planned at 6 ± 3 months after treatment. Two-year cumulative incidences for relapse were estimated and compared by the Gray’s test. Overall, 96 (23.5%) patients were persistent for at least one genotype at three to nine months from baseline and 21 (5.1%) patients relapsed. The two-year cumulative relapse incidence was higher in HPV persistent patients compared to not-persistent (CIF = 27.6%, 95% CI: 16.2–40.2% versus CIF = 1.7%, 95% CI: 0.3–5.8%, p < 0.001), in women with persistent multiple infections (CIF = 27.2%, 95% CI: 7.3–52.3%, p < 0.001), and with the persistence of at least one genotype between 16 and 18, irrespective of the presence of other HR genotypes (CIF = 32.7%, 95% CI: 17.9–48.3%, p < 0.001), but not significantly different from women positive for single infections or any other HR genotype, but not for 16 and 18. The risk of CIN2+ recurrence should not be underestimated when same HPV genotype infection persists after treatment.

29 July 2008 in European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
RPRita Passerini
Rita Passerini
DRD. Riggio
D. Riggio
DRD. Radice
D. Radice
LBL. Bava
L. Bava
CCC. Cassatella
C. Cassatella
MSM. T. Sandri
M. T. Sandri

Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
AAAntonio Angeloni
Antonio Angeloni
CVCorrado De Vito
Corrado De Vito
Antonella FarinaAntonella Farina
Antonella Farina
Daniela TerraccianoDaniela Terracciano
Daniela Terracciano
MCMichele Cennamo
Michele Cennamo
Emanuela AnastasiEmanuela Anastasi
Emanuela Anastasi
Human epididymal secretory protein 4 (HE4) elevation has been studied as a crucial biomarker for malignant gynecological cancer, such us ovarian cancer (OC). However, there are conflicting reports regarding the optimal HE4 cut-off. Thus, the goal of this study was to develop an analytical approach to harmonize HE4 values obtained with different laboratory resources. To this regard, six highly qualified Italian laboratories, using different analytical platforms (Abbott Alinity I, Fujirebio Lumipulse G1200 and G600, Roche Cobas 601 and Abbott Architett), have joined this project. In the first step of our study, a common reference calibration curve (designed through progressive HE4 dilutions) was tested by all members attending the workshop. This first evaluation underlined the presence of analytical bias in different devices. Next, following bias correction, we started to analyze biomarkers values collected in a common database (1509 patients). A two-sided p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. In post-menopausal women stratified between those with malignant gynecological diseases vs. non-malignant gynecological diseases and healthy women, dichotomous HE4 showed a significantly better accuracy than dichotomous Ca125 (AUC 0.81 vs. 0.74, p = 0.001 for age ≤ 60; AUC 0.78 vs. 0.72, p = 0.024 for age > 60). Still, in post-menopausal status, similar results were confirmed in patients with malignant gynecological diseases vs. patients with benign gynecological diseases, both under and over 60 years (AUC 0.79 vs. 0.73, p = 0.006; AUC 0.76 vs. 0.71, p = 0.036, respectively). Interestingly, in pre-menopausal status women over 40 years, HE4 showed a higher accuracy than Ca125 (AUC 0.73 vs. 0.66, p = 0.027), thus opening new perspective for the clinical management of fertile patients with malignant neoplasms, such as ovarian cancer. In summary, this model hinted at a new approach for identifying the optimal cut-off to align data detected with different HE4 diagnostic tools.