Wen-Yi Huang1, Troy J Kemp2, Ruth M Pfeiffer3, Ligia A Pinto2, Allan Hildesheim3, Mark P Purdue3. 1. Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, Rockville, MD, United States. Electronic address: huangw@mail.nih.gov. 2. HPV Immunology Laboratory, Leidos Biomedical Research, Inc., Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research, Frederick, MD, United States. 3. Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, Rockville, MD, United States.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Circulating inflammation markers are being increasingly measured in prospective cohorts to investigate cancer etiology. However, it is unclear how the measurements are affected by the freeze-thaw cycles of the specimens prior to marker analysis. METHODS: We compared concentrations of 45 inflammation markers between paired serum vials of 55 participants in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial that have undergone one (T1), two (T2), and three (T3) freeze-thaw cycles at the time of assay. We computed the difference of analyte concentrations across paired vials (T1 vs. T2, T2 vs. T3) and tested whether the difference deviated from zero using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. We also calculated Spearman rank correlation and weighted kappa statistics for T1 vs. T2 and T2 vs. T3 comparisons to assess agreement in rank ordering of subjects. RESULTS: Measurements between paired T1 and T2 samples were largely similar, with the difference not statistically deviating from zero for 36 of the 45 markers. In contrast, tests of the difference between paired T2 and T3 samples were statistically significant for 36 markers. However, the rank ordering of participants by marker concentration remained largely consistent across T2 and T3 samples, with Spearman correlation coefficients >0.8 for 42 markers and weighted kappas >0.7 for 37 markers. CONCLUSION: We recommend that studies measuring inflammation markers use previously unthawed specimens to the extent possible, or match on the number of prior freeze-thaw cycles in nested case-control studies.
BACKGROUND: Circulating inflammation markers are being increasingly measured in prospective cohorts to investigate cancer etiology. However, it is unclear how the measurements are affected by the freeze-thaw cycles of the specimens prior to marker analysis. METHODS: We compared concentrations of 45 inflammation markers between paired serum vials of 55 participants in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial that have undergone one (T1), two (T2), and three (T3) freeze-thaw cycles at the time of assay. We computed the difference of analyte concentrations across paired vials (T1 vs. T2, T2 vs. T3) and tested whether the difference deviated from zero using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. We also calculated Spearman rank correlation and weighted kappa statistics for T1 vs. T2 and T2 vs. T3 comparisons to assess agreement in rank ordering of subjects. RESULTS: Measurements between paired T1 and T2 samples were largely similar, with the difference not statistically deviating from zero for 36 of the 45 markers. In contrast, tests of the difference between paired T2 and T3 samples were statistically significant for 36 markers. However, the rank ordering of participants by marker concentration remained largely consistent across T2 and T3 samples, with Spearman correlation coefficients >0.8 for 42 markers and weighted kappas >0.7 for 37 markers. CONCLUSION: We recommend that studies measuring inflammation markers use previously unthawed specimens to the extent possible, or match on the number of prior freeze-thaw cycles in nested case-control studies.
Authors: Shirsa Udgata; Naomi Takenaka; William R Bamlet; Ann L Oberg; Stephanie S Yee; Erica L Carpenter; Daniel Herman; Jungsun Kim; Gloria M Petersen; Kenneth S Zaret Journal: Cancer Prev Res (Phila) Date: 2020-10-16
Authors: Thomas Reichel; Tim K Boßlau; Jana Palmowski; Klaus Eder; Robert Ringseis; Frank C Mooren; Rüdiger Walscheid; Evita Bothur; Stefan Samel; Torsten Frech; Marc Philippe; Karsten Krüger Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2020-07-17 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Susan Tuddenham; Christina A Stennett; Richard A Cone; Jacques Ravel; Andrew N Macintyre; Khalil G Ghanem; Xin He; Rebecca M Brotman Journal: BMC Infect Dis Date: 2021-09-18 Impact factor: 3.090
Authors: Zhiwei Liu; Troy J Kemp; Yu-Tang Gao; Amanda Corbel; Emma E McGee; Juan Carlos Roa; Bingsheng Wang; Juan Carlos Araya; Ming-Chang Shen; Asif Rashid; Ann W Hsing; Allan Hildesheim; Catterina Ferreccio; Ruth M Pfeiffer; Ligia A Pinto; Jill Koshiol Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2018-04-04 Impact factor: 4.379