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.
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 cancerpatients 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.
Authors: Avram Z Traum; Meghan P Wells; Manuel Aivado; Towia A Libermann; Marco F Ramoni; Asher D Schachter Journal: Proteomics Date: 2006-03 Impact factor: 3.984
Authors: Emanuel F Petricoin; David K Ornstein; Cloud P Paweletz; Ali Ardekani; Paul S Hackett; Ben A Hitt; Alfredo Velassco; Christian Trucco; Laura Wiegand; Kamillah Wood; Charles B Simone; Peter J Levine; W Marston Linehan; Michael R Emmert-Buck; Seth M Steinberg; Elise C Kohn; Lance A Liotta Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2002-10-16 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Emanuel F Petricoin; Ali M Ardekani; Ben A Hitt; Peter J Levine; Vincent A Fusaro; Seth M Steinberg; Gordon B Mills; Charles Simone; David A Fishman; Elise C Kohn; Lance A Liotta Journal: Lancet Date: 2002-02-16 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Ian M Thompson; Donna K Pauler; Phyllis J Goodman; Catherine M Tangen; M Scott Lucia; Howard L Parnes; Lori M Minasian; Leslie G Ford; Scott M Lippman; E David Crawford; John J Crowley; Charles A Coltman Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-05-27 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: William E Grizzle; O John Semmes; William Bigbee; Liu Zhu; Gunjan Malik; Denise K Oelschlager; Barkha Manne; Upender Manne Journal: Cancer Inform Date: 2005
Authors: Simone Nicolardi; Magnus Palmblad; Hans Dalebout; Marco Bladergroen; Rob A E M Tollenaar; André M Deelder; Yuri E M van der Burgt Journal: J Am Soc Mass Spectrom Date: 2010-05-12 Impact factor: 3.109
Authors: Henrik Ryberg; Jiyan An; Samuel Darko; Jonathan Llyle Lustgarten; Matt Jaffa; Vanathi Gopalakrishnan; David Lacomis; Merit Cudkowicz; Robert Bowser Journal: Muscle Nerve Date: 2010-07 Impact factor: 3.217
Authors: Bert Dhondt; Elise De Bleser; Tom Claeys; Sarah Buelens; Nicolaas Lumen; Jo Vandesompele; Anneleen Beckers; Valerie Fonteyne; Kim Van der Eecken; Aurélie De Bruycker; Jérôme Paul; Pierre Gramme; Piet Ost Journal: World J Urol Date: 2018-12-21 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Melissa K Tuck; Daniel W Chan; David Chia; Andrew K Godwin; William E Grizzle; Karl E Krueger; William Rom; Martin Sanda; Lynn Sorbara; Sanford Stass; Wendy Wang; Dean E Brenner Journal: J Proteome Res Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 4.466
Authors: Lynn M Amon; Wendy Law; Matthew P Fitzgibbon; Jennifer A Gross; Kathy O'Briant; Amelia Peterson; Charles Drescher; Daniel B Martin; Martin McIntosh Journal: PLoS One Date: 2010-06-15 Impact factor: 3.240