4.7 Article

SELDI-TOF MS versus prostate specific antigen analysis of prospective plasma samples in a nested case-control study of prostate cancer

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CANCER
卷 121, 期 3, 页码 615-620

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ijc.22722

关键词

proteomics; prospective; prostate cancer; plasma; PSA

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

There is an urgent need for better biomarkers for detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (PCa). Recent studies suggest that surface enhanced laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry (SELDI-TOF MS) analysis of serum may provide diagnostic information. The aim of this study was to investigate if PCa cases could be identified by applying predefined SELDI-TOF analysis conditions on prospectively, uniformly collected plasma samples from PCa cases and matched controls. Prospective samples from 387 incident PCa cases and an equal number of controls, matched for age and time for, recruitment, were analyzed by SELDI-TOF MS (IMAC30/Cu chip) and multivariate classification analysis. Prospective prostate specific antigen levels were subjected to ROC curve analysis giving an AUC of 0.87 for the total cohort with a median lag time between blood sampling and diagnosis of 6.1 years. No markers were found by SELDITOF MS that significantly discriminated between cases and controls in the total cohort or in subanalysis of cases with less than 2 years between blood donation and diagnosis (n = 42). Cases with aggressive disease at the time of diagnosis who gave blood less than 4 years prior to diagnosis (n = 23) could however be separated from their controls (sensitivity 70%, specificity 83%) by a model based on SELDI-TOF MS and OPLS-DA data analysis. We were thus not able to confirm previous results with SELDI-TOF MS identifying men with PCa from healthy individuals, but we report an optimal experimental set-up for verification of markers for early detection of cancer in prospectively collected samples. (c) 2007 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

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

4.7
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