4.7 Article

Analytical validation of serum proteomic profiling for diagnosis of prostate cancer: Sources of sample bias

期刊

CLINICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 54, 期 1, 页码 44-52

出版社

AMER ASSOC CLINICAL CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1373/clinchem.2007.091470

关键词

-

资金

  1. NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE [P30CA006973, U24CA086359, U01CA084986, U01CA086368, U01CA084968, U01CA085067, P50CA058236, U01CA086402, U24CA086368, U01CA086323] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  2. NCI NIH HHS [U01 CA086402, U01 CA085067, U01 CA086323, CA 86368, P30 CA006973, CA 084986, U24 CA086359, CA 85067, U01 CA084986, CA 84968, P50 CA058236, U24 CA086368, U01 CA086368, CA 86359, CA 86402, CA 86323, U01 CA084968] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: This report and a companion report describe a validation of the ability of serum proteomic profiling via SELDI-TOF mass spectrometry to detect prostatic cancer. Details of this 3-stage process have been described. This report describes the development of the algorithm and results of the blinded test for stage 1. METHODS: We derived the decision algorithm used in this study from the analysis of serum samples from patients with prostate cancer (n = 181) and benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) (n 143) and normal controls (n = 220). We also derived a validation test set from a separate, geographically diverse set of serum samples from 42 prostate cancer patients and 42 controls without prostate cancer. Aliquots were subjected to randomization and blinded analysis, and data from each laboratory site were subjected to the decision algorithm and decoded. RESULTS: Using the data collected from the validation test set, the decision algorithm was unsuccessful in separating cancer from controls with any predictive utility. Analysis of the experimental data revealed potential sources of bias. CONCLUSION: The ability of the decision algorithm to successfully differentiate between prostate cancer, BPH, and control samples using data derived from serum protein profiling was compromised by bias. (c) 2007 American Association for Clinical Chemistry.

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