4.6 Article

BARD1 Autoantibody Blood Test for Early Detection of Ovarian Cancer

期刊

GENES
卷 12, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/genes12070969

关键词

BRCA1; BARD1; breast cancer; ovarian cancer; autoantibodies; blood test; early detection

资金

  1. BARD1 Life Sciences Limited, Melbourne, Australia
  2. European FP7 grant OVCAD
  3. National Science Centre [2011/02/A/NZ2/00017]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that measuring autoantibody binding to multiple epitopes of BARD1 combined with CA125 can accurately distinguish OC from healthy controls, with better results in all OC stages and menopausal status.
Background: Ovarian cancer (OC) is the most lethal gynaecological cancer. It is often diagnosed at an advanced stage with poor chances for successful treatment. An accurate blood test for the early detection of OC could reduce the mortality of this disease. Methods: Autoantibody reactivity to 20 epitopes of BARD1 and concentration of cancer antigen 125 (CA125) were assessed in 480 serum samples of OC patients and healthy controls. Autoantibody reactivity and CA125 were also tested for 261 plasma samples of OC with or without mutations in BRCA1/2, BARD1, or other predisposing genes, and healthy controls. Lasso statistic regression was applied to measurements to develop an algorithm for discrimination between OC and controls. Findings and interpretation: Measurement of autoantibody binding to a number of BARD1 epitopes combined with CA125 could distinguish OC from healthy controls with high accuracy. This BARD1-CA125 test was more accurate than measurements of BARD1 autoantibody or CA125 alone for all OC stages and menopausal status. A BARD1-CA125-based test is expected to work equally well for average-risk women and high-risk women with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome (HBOC). Although these results are promising, further data on well-characterised clinical samples shall be used to confirm the potential of the BARD1-CA125 test for ovarian cancer screening.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据