2011 March - Ovarian Cancer Biomarker Performance in Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial Specimens — Cancer Prev Res Ovarian Cancer and Us OVARIAN CANCER and US Ovarian Cancer and Us

Blog Archives: Nov 2004 - present

#ovariancancers



Special items: Ovarian Cancer and Us blog best viewed in Firefox

Search This Blog

Thursday, March 03, 2011

2011 March - Ovarian Cancer Biomarker Performance in Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial Specimens — Cancer Prev Res



Abstract

Establishing a cancer screening biomarker's intended performance requires “phase III” specimens obtained in asymptomatic individuals before clinical diagnosis rather than “phase II” specimens obtained from symptomatic individuals at diagnosis. We used specimens from the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial to evaluate ovarian cancer biomarkers previously assessed in phase II sets. Phase II specimens from 180 ovarian cancer cases and 660 benign disease or general population controls were assembled from four Early Detection Research Network or Ovarian Cancer Specialized Program of Research Excellence sites and used to rank 49 biomarkers. Thirty-five markers, including 6 additional markers from a fifth site, were then evaluated in PLCO proximate specimens from 118 women with ovarian cancer and 474 matched controls. Top markers in phase II specimens included CA125, HE4, transthyretin, CA15.3, and CA72.4 with sensitivity at 95% specificity ranging from 0.73 to 0.40. Except for transthyretin, these markers had similar or better sensitivity when moving to phase III specimens that had been drawn within 6 months of the clinical diagnosis. Performance of all markers declined in phase III specimens more remote than 6 months from diagnosis. Despite many promising new markers for ovarian cancer, CA125 remains the single-best biomarker in the phase II and phase III specimens tested in this study.  
Cancer Prev Res; 4(3); 365–74. ©2011 AACR

Read the Commentary on this article by Jacobs et al., p. 299
Read the Commentary on this article by Mai et al., p. 303

Footnotes

  • Note: This is the first of two companion manuscripts submitted under separate cover.
  • Received August 10, 2010.
  • Revision received November 22, 2010.
  • Accepted December 8, 2010.

0 comments :

Post a Comment

Your comments?

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.