4.7 Article

Urinary biomarker profiling in transitional cell carcinoma

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CANCER
卷 119, 期 11, 页码 2642-2650

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ijc.22238

关键词

proteomics; biomarkers; transitional cell carcinoma; SELDI; bladder cancer

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Urinary biomarkers or profiles that allow noninvasive detection of recurrent transitional cell carcinoma (TCC) of the bladder are urgently needed. We obtained duplicate proteomic (SELDI) profiles from 227 subjects (118 TCC, 77 healthy controls and 32 controls with benign urological conditions) and used linear mixed effects models to identify peaks that are differentially expressed between TCC and controls and within TCC subgroups. A Random Forest classifier was trained on 130 profiles to develop an algorithm to predict the presence of TCC in a randomly selected initial test set (n = 54) and an independent validation set (n = 43) several months later. Twenty two peaks were differentially expressed between all TCC and controls (P < 10(-7)). However potential confounding effects of age, sex and analytical run were identified. In an age-matched sub-set, 23 peaks were differentially expressed between TCC and combined benign and healthy controls at the 0.005 significance level. Using the Random Forest classifier, TCC was predicted with 71.7% sensitivity and 62.5% specificity in the initial set and with 78.3% sensitivity and 65.0% specificity in the validation set after 6 months, compared with controls. Several peaks of importance were also identified in the linear mixed effects model. We conclude that SELDI profiling of urine samples can identify patients with TCC with comparable sensitivities and specificities to current tumor marker tests. This is the first time that reproducibility has been demonstrated on an independent test set analyzed several months later. Identification of the relevant peaks may facilitate multiplex marker assay development for detection of recurrent disease. (c) 2006 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