4.7 Article

Development of a multiplexed urine assay for prostate cancer diagnosis

期刊

CLINICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 54, 期 5, 页码 874-882

出版社

AMER ASSOC CLINICAL CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1373/clinchem.2007.094912

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: Several studies have demonstrated the value of DNA methylation in urine-based assays for prostate cancer diagnosis. However, a multicenter validation with a clinical prototype has not been published. METHODS: We developed a multiplexed, quantitative methylation-specific polymerase chain reaction (MSP) assay consisting of 3 methylation markers, GSTP1, RARB, and APC, and an endogenous control, ACTB, in a closed-tube, homogeneous assay format. We tested this format with urine samples collected after digital rectal examination from 234 patients with prostatespecific antigen (PSA) concentrations >= 2.5 mu g/L in 2 independent patient cohorts from 9 clinical sites. RESULTS: In the first cohort of 121 patients, we demonstrated 55% sensitivity and 80% specificity, with area under the curve (AUC) 0.69. In the second independent cohort of 113 patients, we found a comparable sensitivity of 53% and specificity of 76% (AUC 0.65). In the first cohort, as well as in a combined cohort, the MSP assay in conjunction with total PSA, digital rectal examination status, and age improved the AUC without MSP, although the difference was not statistically significant. Importantly, the GSTP1 cycle threshold value demonstrated a good correlation (R = 0.84) with the number of cores found to contain prostate cancer or premalignant lesions on biopsy. Moreover, samples that exhibited methylation for either GSTP1 or RARB typically contained higher tumor volumes at prostatectomy than those samples that did not exhibit methylation. CONCLUSIONS: These data confirm and extend previously reported studies and demonstrate the performance of a clinical prototype assay that should aid urologists in identifying men who should undergo biopsy. (c) 2008 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