4.7 Article

DNA integrity assay: A plasma-based screening tool for the detection of prostate cancer

期刊

CLINICAL CANCER RESEARCH
卷 12, 期 15, 页码 4569-4574

出版社

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-06-0130

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. NIDDK NIH HHS [1DK59400] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate the utility of the DNA integrity assay (DIA) as a plasma-based screening tool for the detection of prostate cancer. Experimental Design: Blood samples were collected from patients with biopsy-proven prostate cancer prior to prostatectomy (n = 123) and processed as two-spin plasma preparations. The three control groups included: males (40 years old with no history of cancer (group 1, n = 20); cancer-free postprostatectomy patients (group 2, n = 25), and patients with a negative prostate biopsy (group 3, n = 22). DNA in plasma preparations were isolated, hybrid-captured, and DNA fragments (200 bp, 1.3,1.8, and 2.4 kb) were multiplexed in real-time PCR. A baseline cutoff was determined for individual fragment lengths to establish a DIA score for each patient sample. Results: Patients with prostate cancer (86 of 123; 69.9%) were determined to have a positive DIA score of >= 7. The DIA results from control groups 1, 2, and 3 showed specificities of 90%, 92%, and 68.2%, respectively. Of the patients with negative age-adjusted prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and prostate cancer, 19 of 30 (63%) had a positive DIA score. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for DIA was 0.788. Conclusion: While detecting 69.9% of those with prostate cancer, DIA maintained an overall specificity of 68.2% to 92%, a range favorably comparable to that currently accepted for PSA (60-70%). The variability in specificity between control groups is likely explained by the established 19% to 30% detection of prostate cancer on subsequent biopsies associated with control group 3. DIA detected 63% of the prostate cancers undetected by currently accepted PSA ranges.

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