3.8 Article

Elevated Serum Megakaryocyte Potentiating Factor as a Predictor of Poor Survival in Patients with Mesothelioma and Primary Lung Cancer

期刊

JOURNAL OF APPLIED LABORATORY MEDICINE
卷 3, 期 2, 页码 166-177

出版社

AMER ASSOC CLINICAL CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1373/jalm.2017.025015

关键词

-

资金

  1. Intramural NIH HHS [Z01 BC010981-01, Z01 BC011048-01] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: There is an urgent need for a companion assay to work with mesothelin-targeted therapeutic agents and for noninvasive and accurate prognostication of malignant mesothelioma (MM) patients. We report the development and validation of a blood-based assay for megakaryocyte potentiating factor (MPF) and the evaluation of its effectiveness for prognosis in MM and lung cancer patients. Methods: Using electrochemiluminescence technology, we developed a sensitive MPF assay and performed both analytical and clinical validations. Further, the effectiveness of the MPF assay in predicting prognosis was evaluated for 95 MM and 272 lung cancer patients. Results: We performed comprehensive analytical and clinical validation, including precision and accuracy, interference, preanalytical variables, sensitivity, and specificity for mesothelioma. In MM patients, increased serum MPF is a predictor of poor survival with a hazard ratio (HR) = 2.46 (log-rank P = 0.003; n = 95). In refractory MM patients, increased MPF is a strong predictor of poor outcome with an HR = 6.12 (log-rank P = 0.0007; n = 57). In a lung cancer patient cohort, increased MPF is a predictor of poor survival, with an HR = 1.57 (log-rank P = 0.003; n = 272). Conclusions: The MPF assay has robust technical characteristics, with strong analytic and clinical validation. Clinical studies indicate that increased serum MPF is a predictor of poor survival for MM patients, throughout the course of the disease. Increased MPF is also associated with poor overall survival for patients with newly diagnosed lung cancer.

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

3.8
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