4.8 Article

Detection of prostate cancer with a blood-based assay for early prostate cancer antigen

期刊

CANCER RESEARCH
卷 65, 期 10, 页码 4097-4100

出版社

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-04-4523

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Prostate-specific antigen lacks specificity for prostate cancer, so the identification and characterization of a unique blood-based marker for the disease would provide for a more accurate diagnosis, reducing both unnecessary biopsies and patient uncertainty. We previously identified a novel biomarker for prostate cancer, early prostate cancer antigen (EPCA). EPCA antibodies positively stained the negative biopsies of men who, as much as 5 years later, were diagnosed with prostate cancer. The goal of this study was to determine whether EPCA antibodies could be used in a clinically applicable plasma-based immunoassay to specifically detect prostate cancer. Using an EPCA-based ELISA, the protein was measured in the plasma of 46 individuals, including prostate cancer patients, healthy individuals, other cancer patients, spinal cord injury victims, and patients with prostatitis. With a predetermined cutoff value of 1.7 absorbance at 450 nm, only the prostate cancer population, as a whole, expressed plasma-EPCA levels above the cutoff. Statistical analysis showed a significant difference in EPCA levels between the prostate cancer population and each of the other groups, specifically the healthy donors (P < 0.0001), bladder cancer patients (P = 0.03), and spinal cord injury patients (P = 0.001). Sensitivity of the EPCA assay for prostate cancer patients was 92% whereas the overall specificity was 94%. Specificity for the healthy donors was 100%. Although larger trials are required, this initial study shows the potential of EPCA to serve as a highly specific blood-based marker for prostate cancer. EPCA, when coupled with prostate-specific antigen, may help reduce the number of both unnecessary biopsies and undetected prostate tumors.

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

4.8
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