Prostatic Neoplasms: Sokoll L

Sturgeon CM, Duffy MJ, Stenman UH, Lilja H, Brünner N, Chan DW, Babaian R, Bast RC, Dowell B, Esteva FJ, Haglund C, Harbeck N, Hayes DF, Holten-Andersen M, Klee GG, Lamerz R, Looijenga LH, Molina R, Nielsen HJ, Rittenhouse H, Semjonow A, Shih IeM, Sibley P, Sölétormos G, Stephan C, Sokoll L, Hoffman BR, Diamandis EP, Anonymous00039. · Department of Clinical Biochemistry, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK. · Clin Chem. · Pubmed #19042984 No free full text.

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Updated National Academy of Clinical Biochemistry (NACB) Laboratory Medicine Practice Guidelines for the use of tumor markers in the clinic have been developed. METHODS: Published reports relevant to use of tumor markers for 5 cancer sites--testicular, prostate, colorectal, breast, and ovarian--were critically reviewed. RESULTS: For testicular cancer, alpha-fetoprotein, human chorionic gonadotropin, and lactate dehydrogenase are recommended for diagnosis/case finding, staging, prognosis determination, recurrence detection, and therapy monitoring. alpha-Fetoprotein is also recommended for differential diagnosis of nonseminomatous and seminomatous germ cell tumors. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) is not recommended for prostate cancer screening, but may be used for detecting disease recurrence and monitoring therapy. Free PSA measurement data are useful for distinguishing malignant from benign prostatic disease when total PSA is <10 microg/L. In colorectal cancer, carcinoembryonic antigen is recommended (with some caveats) for prognosis determination, postoperative surveillance, and therapy monitoring in advanced disease. Fecal occult blood testing may be used for screening asymptomatic adults 50 years or older. For breast cancer, estrogen and progesterone receptors are mandatory for predicting response to hormone therapy, human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 measurement is mandatory for predicting response to trastuzumab, and urokinase plasminogen activator/plasminogen activator inhibitor 1 may be used for determining prognosis in lymph node-negative patients. CA15-3/BR27-29 or carcinoembryonic antigen may be used for therapy monitoring in advanced disease. CA125 is recommended (with transvaginal ultrasound) for early detection of ovarian cancer in women at high risk for this disease. CA125 is also recommended for differential diagnosis of suspicious pelvic masses in postmenopausal women, as well as for detection of recurrence, monitoring of therapy, and determination of prognosis in women with ovarian cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of these recommendations should encourage optimal use of tumor markers.

Partin AW, Brawer MK, Bartsch G, Horninger W, Taneja SS, Lepor H, Babaian R, Childs SJ, Stamey T, Fritsche HA, Sokoll L, Chan DW, Thiel RP, Cheli CD. · James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, The Johns Hopkins Medical Institution, Baltimore, MD 21287, USA. · J Urol. · Pubmed #14532777 No free full text.

Abstract: PURPOSE: Complexed (c) prostate specific antigen (PSA) has been shown to enhance specificity for prostate cancer (CaP) detection over total PSA (tPSA), although a large multi-institutional prospective evaluation was required to confirm these findings. We compared the clinical performance of cPSA with tPSA as a first line test for CaP detection and secondarily to determine if PSA ratios, namely percent free PSA (fPSA) and percent cPSA, can provide further enhancement in diagnostic performance over cPSA or tPSA. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Consecutive men scheduled for initial biopsy of the prostate were enrolled prospectively at each of 7 university centers and community based urology practices. Serum was collected and tested with the Immuno 1 (Bayer Diagnostics, Tarrytown, New York), tPSA and cPSA, and Access (Beckman, Inc., San Diego, California) fPSA and tPSA methods. RESULTS: A total of 831 patients were evaluated, of whom 313 (37.5%) were diagnosed with CaP. ROC curve analysis performed from the results of all samples and those within the clinically relevant cPSA ranges of 1.5 to 3.2, 1.5 to 5.1, 1.5 to 8.3 and 3.2 to 8.3 ng/ml (tPSA 2 to 4, 2 to 6, 2 to 10 and 4 to 10 ng/ml, respectively) indicated a significant improvement in the AUC ROC curve for cPSA compared with tPSA (p < or =0.001). Using cutoff points that provide a sensitivity of 80% to 95% for CaP detection within the 1.5 to 8.3 ng/ml cPSA range cPSA provided a statistically significant enhancement in specificity over tPSA of 6.2% to 7.9%. Within the cPSA range of 1.5 to 3.2 ng/ml using a cutoff point of 2.5 ng/ml for tPSA and 2.2 ng/ml for cPSA provided a specificity of 21.2% and 35%, respectively, and 85% sensitivity for CaP detection. PSA ratios provided no further enhancement in specificity over cPSA within these ranges. CONCLUSIONS: The use of cPSA as a single test provided improved specificity over tPSA. Percent fPSA and percent cPSA offered little to no additional benefit in the differentiation of benign and malignant disease at clinically relevant cPSA concentrations.

Loeb S, Chan DW, Sokoll L, Kan D, Maggiore J, Mikolajczyk SD, Mondo DM, Griffin CR, Catalona WJ. · Department of Urology, The Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. · J Urol. · Pubmed #18801532 No free full text.

Abstract: PURPOSE: Although prostate specific antigen is widely used to detect and manage prostate cancer, many patients and physicians are unaware of which prostate specific antigen assay is being used. Most commercial prostate specific antigen assays are standardized to the WHO 90:10 standard or aligned with the original Hybritech assay with potentially disparate results. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 1,916 men participated in a prostate cancer screening study in 2007. On the day of collection prostate specific antigen was tested from the same serum sample using the Access (Hybritech standard) and ADVIA Centaur (WHO 90:10 prostate specific antigen standard) assays. We examined the differences between the 2 assays and the effect that this might have on clinical decisions. RESULTS: Median prostate specific antigen was 0.9 and 1.05 ng/ml for the Centaur and Access assays, respectively, representing a 17% difference. Mean prostate specific antigen was 3.45 and 4.79 ng/ml, respectively, representing a 38% difference. Using a prostate specific antigen threshold of 2.5 ng/ml 5% of men would have been recommended to undergo biopsy using the Access but not the Centaur assay. Furthermore, prostate specific antigen differed by greater than 0.4 ng/ml in 26%, greater than 0.75 ng/ml in 14.5% and greater than 2 ng/ml in 4.5% of men in the same sample simply by using the different assays. CONCLUSIONS: In our prospective screening population median prostate specific antigen was 17% lower using WHO vs Hybritech based assay standardization. As such, if these assays were instead used on a serial basis in the same patient, this could lead to false acceleration or false deceleration in prostate specific antigen velocity. Thus, the assay may influence the likelihood of prostate biopsy and, thereby, prostate cancer detection.

McLerran D, Grizzle WE, Feng Z, Thompson IM, Bigbee WL, Cazares LH, Chan DW, Dahlgren J, Diaz J, Kagan J, Lin DW, Malik G, Oelschlager D, Partin A, Randolph TW, Sokoll L, Srivastava S, Srivastava S, Thornquist M, Troyer D, Wright GL, Zhang Z, Zhu L, Semmes OJ. · Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, USA. · Clin Chem. · Pubmed #18024530 links to  free full text

Abstract: BACKGROUND: The analysis of bodily fluids using SELDI-TOF MS has been reported to identify signatures of spectral peaks that can be used to differentiate patients with a specific disease from normal or control patients. This report is the 2nd of 2 companion articles describing a validation study of a SELDI-TOF MS approach with IMAC surface sample processing to identify prostatic adenocarcinoma. METHODS: We sought to derive a decision algorithm for classification of prostate cancer from SELDI-TOF MS spectral data from a new retrospective sample cohort of 400 specimens. This new cohort was selected to minimize possible confounders identified in the previous study described in the companion paper. RESULTS: The resulting new classifier failed to separate patients with prostate cancer from biopsy-negative controls; nor did it separate patients with prostate cancer with Gleason scores <7 from those with Gleason scores > or =7. CONCLUSIONS: In this, the 2nd stage of our planned validation process, the SELDI-TOF MS-based protein expression profiling approach did not perform well enough to advance to the 3rd (prospective study) stage. We conclude that the results from our previous studies-in which differentiation between prostate cancer and noncancer was demonstrated-are not generalizable. Earlier study samples likely had biases in sample selection that upon removal, as in the present study, resulted in inability of the technique to discriminate cancer from noncancer cases.