Literature DB >> 25541602

Methodical and pre-analytical characteristics of a multiplex cancer biomarker immunoassay.

Natalie Hermann1, Katja Dreßen1, Frank A Schildberg1, Christopher Jakobs1, Stefan Holdenrieder1.   

Abstract

AIM: To test the methodical and pre-analytical performance of a new multiplex cancer biomarker panel using magnetic beads.
METHODS: The MILLIPLEX(®) MAP Human Circulating Cancer Biomarker Magnetic Bead Panel 1 comprises the tumor markers carcinoembryonic antigen, alpha-fetoprotein, total prostate-specific antigen, cancer antigen 15-3, cancer antigen 19-9, cancer antigen 125, cytokeratine 19-fragment, β-human chorionic gonadotropin, human epididymis protein 4, osteopontin, prolactin, the cell death and angiogenesis markers soluble Fas, soluble Fas-ligand, tumor necrosis factor related apoptosis-inducing ligand, vascular endothelial growth factor and the immunological markers interleukin-6 (IL-6), IL-8, tumor necrosis factor-α, transforming growth factor α, fibroblast growth factor-2, macrophage migration inhibitory factor, leptin, hepatocyte growth factor, and stem cell factor. We determined intra- and inter-assay imprecision as well as dilution linearity using quality controls and serum pools. Furthermore, the stability of the 24 biomarkers examined in this panel was ascertained by testing the influence of different storage temperatures and time span before centrifugation.
RESULTS: For all markers measured in the synthetic internal quality controls, the intra-assay imprecision ranged between 2.26% and 9.41%, while for 20 of 24 measured markers in the physiological serum pools, it ranged between 1.68% and 12.87%. The inter-assay imprecision ranged between 1.48%-17.12% for 23 biomarkers in synthetic, and between 4.59%-23.88% for 18 biomarkers in physiological quality controls. Here, single markers with very low concentration levels had increased imprecision rates. Dilution linearity was acceptable (70%-130% recovery) for 20 biomarkers. Regarding pre-analytical influencing factors, most markers were stable if blood centrifugation was delayed or if serum was stored for up to 24 h at 4 °C and 25 °C after centrifugation. Comparable results were obtained in serum and plasma for most markers. However, great changes were observed for single markers.
CONCLUSION: MILLIPLEX(®) MAP Human Circulating Cancer Biomarker Magnetic Bead Panel 1 assay is a stable and precise method for detection of most biomarkers included in the kit. However, single markers have to be interpreted with care.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cell death markers; Cytokines; Methodical evaluation; Multiplex immunoassay; Tumor marker

Year:  2014        PMID: 25541602      PMCID: PMC4274581          DOI: 10.5662/wjm.v4.i4.219

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  World J Methodol        ISSN: 2222-0682


  33 in total

1.  Validation and comparison of two multiplex technologies, Luminex and Mesoscale Discovery, for human cytokine profiling.

Authors:  Ferdousi Chowdhury; Anthony Williams; Peter Johnson
Journal:  J Immunol Methods       Date:  2008-11-05       Impact factor: 2.303

2.  National Academy of Clinical Biochemistry Laboratory Medicine Practice Guidelines for use of tumor markers in liver, bladder, cervical, and gastric cancers.

Authors:  Catharine M Sturgeon; Michael J Duffy; Barry R Hofmann; Rolf Lamerz; Herbert A Fritsche; Katja Gaarenstroom; Johannes Bonfrer; Thorsten H Ecke; H Barton Grossman; Peter Hayes; Ralf-Thorsten Hoffmann; Seth P Lerner; Florian Löhe; Johanna Louhimo; Ihor Sawczuk; Kazuhisa Taketa; Eleftherios P Diamandis
Journal:  Clin Chem       Date:  2010-03-05       Impact factor: 8.327

3.  Sample handling and stability of hepatocyte growth factor in blood samples.

Authors:  Fariba Nayeri; Lars Brudin; Ingela Nilsson; Pia Forsberg
Journal:  Cytokine       Date:  2002-08-21       Impact factor: 3.861

4.  Variability of leptin values measured from different sample matrices.

Authors:  M Gröschl; R Wagner; H G Dörr; W Blum; W Rascher; J Dötsch
Journal:  Horm Res       Date:  2000

Review 5.  Diagnostic relevance of circulating biomarkers in patients with lung cancer.

Authors:  Rafael Molina; Stefan Holdenrieder; Jose Maria Auge; Andreas Schalhorn; Rudolph Hatz; Petra Stieber
Journal:  Cancer Biomark       Date:  2010       Impact factor: 4.388

6.  Serum CA19-9, cathepsin D, and matrix metalloproteinase-7 as a diagnostic panel for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.

Authors:  Hyung-Doo Park; Eun-Suk Kang; Jong-Won Kim; Kyu-Taek Lee; Kwang Hyuck Lee; Young Suk Park; Joon-Oh Park; Jeeyun Lee; Jin Seok Heo; Seong Ho Choi; Dong Wook Choi; Seonwoo Kim; Jong Kyun Lee; Soo-Youn Lee
Journal:  Proteomics       Date:  2012-12       Impact factor: 3.984

7.  Stability of pro-gastrin-releasing peptide in serum versus plasma.

Authors:  Toru Yoshimura; Kenju Fujita; Satoshi Kawakami; Katsumichi Takeda; Sabrina Chan; Gangamani Beligere; Barry Dowell
Journal:  Tumour Biol       Date:  2008-09-09

Review 8.  Hallmarks of cancer: the next generation.

Authors:  Douglas Hanahan; Robert A Weinberg
Journal:  Cell       Date:  2011-03-04       Impact factor: 41.582

9.  Development of multiplexed bead-based immunoassays for the detection of early stage ovarian cancer using a combination of serum biomarkers.

Authors:  Yong-Wan Kim; Su Mi Bae; Hyunsun Lim; Yoon Ji Kim; Woong Shick Ahn
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-09-10       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 10.  Validation processes of protein biomarkers in serum--a cross platform comparison.

Authors:  Katja Köhler; Harald Seitz
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2012-09-18       Impact factor: 3.576

View more
  6 in total

Review 1.  Novel bone metabolism-associated hormones: the importance of the pre-analytical phase for understanding their physiological roles.

Authors:  Giovanni Lombardi; Mosè Barbaro; Massimo Locatelli; Giuseppe Banfi
Journal:  Endocrine       Date:  2017-02-08       Impact factor: 3.633

Review 2.  Measuring myokines with cardiovascular functions: pre-analytical variables affecting the analytical output.

Authors:  Giovanni Lombardi; Veronica Sansoni; Giuseppe Banfi
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2017-08

3.  A systematic review and meta-analysis of preanalytical factors and methodological differences influencing the measurement of circulating vascular endothelial growth factor.

Authors:  Ulrika Sjöbom; Anders K Nilsson; Hanna Gyllensten; Ann Hellström; Chatarina Löfqvist
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-07-06       Impact factor: 3.752

4.  The myokine Fibcd1 is an endogenous determinant of myofiber size and mitigates cancer-induced myofiber atrophy.

Authors:  Mamta Rai; Liam C Hunt; Flavia A Graca; Anna Stephan; Yong-Dong Wang; Brittney Gordon; Ruishan Wang; Giovanni Quarato; Beisi Xu; Yiping Fan; Myriam Labelle; Fabio Demontis
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2022-05-02       Impact factor: 17.694

5.  The impact of exercise on growth factors (VEGF and FGF2): results from a 12-month randomized intervention trial.

Authors:  Darren R Brenner; Yibing Ruan; Scott C Adams; Kerry S Courneya; Christine M Friedenreich
Journal:  Eur Rev Aging Phys Act       Date:  2019-06-24       Impact factor: 3.878

6.  Biomarker-Based Models for Preoperative Assessment of Adnexal Mass: A Multicenter Validation Study.

Authors:  Rafał Watrowski; Eva Obermayr; Christine Wallisch; Stefanie Aust; Nicole Concin; Elena Ioana Braicu; Toon Van Gorp; Annette Hasenburg; Jalid Sehouli; Ignace Vergote; Robert Zeillinger
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2022-03-31       Impact factor: 6.639

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.