4.7 Article

A multicenter evaluation of the PCA3 molecular urine test: Pre-analytical effects, analytical performance, and diagnostic accuracy

Journal

CLINICA CHIMICA ACTA
Volume 389, Issue 1-2, Pages 1-6

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.cca.2007.11.003

Keywords

PCA3; PSA; prostate cancer; molecular urine test

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Measurement of prostate cancer gene 3 (PCA3) mRNA normalized to prostate-specific antigen (PSA) mRNA in urine has been proposed as a marker for prostate cancer. Methods: We investigated pre-analytical effects, analytical performance, and diagnostic accuracy of a quantitative assay for PCA3. Results: Urine specimens collected without prostate manipulation demonstrated low informative rates. However, specimens collected following digital rectal examinations of 3 or 8 strokes per prostate lobe demonstrated informative rates >94%. Across all urine specimen types, median PCA3 results did not show statistically significant differences (P>0.8). Measurements of controls of known mRNA content demonstrated percent recoveries of 100+/-15% for both PCA3 and PSA mRNAs. PCA3 mRNA total, intra-assay, inter-assay, and inter-site CVs were <= 17.1 %, <= 14.0%, <= 9.9%, and <= 3.2%, respectively. Corresponding CVs for PSA mRNA assay were <= 11.5%, <= 8.6%, <= 7.9%, and <= 8.3%. Blinded assay of urines from 72 men with known prostate biopsy outcomes yielded areas under the curve from receiver-operating characteristic analysis of 0.7 at both research sites. Deming regression of individual PCA3 results between sites yielded slope=0.94, intercept=0.48, R=0.9677 (P<0.0001). Conclusions: The PCA3 assay is insensitive to pre-analytical factors, performs well analytically and correctly classifies a high percent of subjects with known prostate cancer status across research sites. (C) 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available