BACKGROUND: Measurement of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) in prostate cancer patients following radical prostatectomy (RP) has been hindered by the limit of quantification of available assays. Because radical prostatectomy removes the tissue responsible for PSA production, postsurgical PSA is typically undetectable with current assay methods. Evidence suggests, however, that more sensitive determination of PSA status following RP could improve assessment of patient prognosis and response to treatment and better target secondary therapy for those who may benefit most. We developed an investigational digital immunoassay with a limit of quantification 2 logs lower than current ultrasensitive third-generation PSA assays. METHODS: We developed reagents for a bead-based ELISA for use with high-density arrays of femtoliter-volume wells. Anti-PSA capture beads with immunocomplexes and associated enzyme labels were singulated within the wells of the arrays and interrogated for the presence of enzymatic product. We characterized analytical performance, compared its accuracy with a commercially available test, and analyzed longitudinal serum samples from a pilot study of 33 RP patients. RESULTS: The assay exhibited a functional sensitivity (20% interassay CV) <0.05 pg/mL, total imprecision <10% from 1 to 50 pg/mL, and excellent agreement with the comparator method. All RP samples were well within the assay measurement capability. PSA concentrations following surgery were found to be predictive of prostate cancer recurrence risk over 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: The robust 2-log improvement in limit of quantification relative to current ultrasensitive assays and the validated analytical performance of the assay allow for accurate assessment of PSA status after RP.
BACKGROUND: Measurement of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) in prostate cancerpatients following radical prostatectomy (RP) has been hindered by the limit of quantification of available assays. Because radical prostatectomy removes the tissue responsible for PSA production, postsurgical PSA is typically undetectable with current assay methods. Evidence suggests, however, that more sensitive determination of PSA status following RP could improve assessment of patient prognosis and response to treatment and better target secondary therapy for those who may benefit most. We developed an investigational digital immunoassay with a limit of quantification 2 logs lower than current ultrasensitive third-generation PSA assays. METHODS: We developed reagents for a bead-based ELISA for use with high-density arrays of femtoliter-volume wells. Anti-PSA capture beads with immunocomplexes and associated enzyme labels were singulated within the wells of the arrays and interrogated for the presence of enzymatic product. We characterized analytical performance, compared its accuracy with a commercially available test, and analyzed longitudinal serum samples from a pilot study of 33 RP patients. RESULTS: The assay exhibited a functional sensitivity (20% interassay CV) <0.05 pg/mL, total imprecision <10% from 1 to 50 pg/mL, and excellent agreement with the comparator method. All RP samples were well within the assay measurement capability. PSA concentrations following surgery were found to be predictive of prostate cancer recurrence risk over 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: The robust 2-log improvement in limit of quantification relative to current ultrasensitive assays and the validated analytical performance of the assay allow for accurate assessment of PSA status after RP.
Authors: E J Vassilikos; H Yu; J Trachtenberg; R K Nam; S A Narod; I L Bromberg; E P Diamandis Journal: Clin Biochem Date: 2000-03 Impact factor: 3.281
Authors: Herbert Lepor; Carol D Cheli; Robert P Thiel; Samir S Taneja; Juliana Laze; Dan W Chan; Lori J Sokoll; Leslie Mangold; Alan W Partin Journal: BJU Int Date: 2011-10-12 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Theodorus H Van der Kwast; Michel Bolla; Hein Van Poppel; Paul Van Cangh; Kris Vekemans; Luigi Da Pozzo; Jean-Francois Bosset; Karl H Kurth; Fritz H Schröder; Laurence Collette Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-09-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Bruce J Trock; Misop Han; Stephen J Freedland; Elizabeth B Humphreys; Theodore L DeWeese; Alan W Partin; Patrick C Walsh Journal: JAMA Date: 2008-06-18 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Andrew J Stephenson; Peter T Scardino; Michael W Kattan; Thomas M Pisansky; Kevin M Slawin; Eric A Klein; Mitchell S Anscher; Jeff M Michalski; Howard M Sandler; Daniel W Lin; Jeffrey D Forman; Michael J Zelefsky; Larry L Kestin; Claus G Roehrborn; Charles N Catton; Theodore L DeWeese; Stanley L Liauw; Richard K Valicenti; Deborah A Kuban; Alan Pollack Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-05-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Lei Chang; David M Rissin; David R Fournier; Tomasz Piech; Purvish P Patel; David H Wilson; David C Duffy Journal: J Immunol Methods Date: 2012-02-20 Impact factor: 2.303
Authors: Eleftherios P Diamandis; Frank Z Stanczyk; Sarah Wheeler; Anu Mathew; Martin Stengelin; Galina Nikolenko; Eli N Glezer; Marshall D Brown; Yingye Zheng; Yen-Hao Chen; Hsiao-Li Wu; Ricardo Azziz Journal: Clin Chem Lab Med Date: 2017-10-26 Impact factor: 3.694
Authors: Linan Song; Mingwei Zhao; David C Duffy; Joshua Hansen; Kelsey Shields; Manida Wungjiranirun; Xinhua Chen; Hua Xu; Daniel A Leffler; Susan P Sambol; Dale N Gerding; Ciarán P Kelly; Nira R Pollock Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2015-07-22 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: Stephanie M Schubert; Lisa M Arendt; Wenhui Zhou; Shazia Baig; Stephanie R Walter; Rachel J Buchsbaum; Charlotte Kuperwasser; David R Walt Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2015-06-08 Impact factor: 4.379