Clinical Chemistry Link to Randox Laboratories Web Site
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Clinical Chemistry 39: 2386-2396, 1993;
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit an electronic Letter to
the Editor about this paper
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Werner, M.
Right arrow Articles by Silverberg, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Werner, M.
Right arrow Articles by Silverberg, M.

Clinical Chemistry, Vol 39, 2386-2396, Copyright © 1993 by American Association for Clinical Chemistry

Clinical utility and validation of emerging biochemical markers for mammary adenocarcinoma

M Werner, C Faser and M Silverberg
Department of Pathology, George Washington University Medical Center, Washington, DC 20037.

The clinical utilities of the emerging biochemical markers for mammary adenocarcinoma CA 15-3, CA 549, CA M26, CA M29, and MCA (mucin-like carcinoma-associated antigen) were assessed by a formal rating according to six desirable marker characteristics. All five indicators similarly have good specificities but limited sensitivities. As a consequence, these markers mainly meet just two desirable criteria: their frequency and degree of expression reflect tumor burden and prognosis, and they may correlate with therapeutic results. The validation of these assay properties by clinical trials was evaluated by another rating system, designed to assess proband sample selection, restrictions on allowable observations, and choice of statistical descriptors. By these benchmarks, the estimates of the prior probabilities of test outcome (sensitivity and specificity) are reasonably definitive, but conclusive judgments about the posterior probabilities of test outcome ("predictive values") and about values and costs associated with testing are not possible. Three approaches to enhance the limited clinical utility of biochemical breast cancer markers are considered: shifts of the diagnostic decision threshold, marker panels, and sequential testing. However, none of these strategies improves the described performance characteristics.


The following articles in journals at HighWire Press have cited this article:


Home page
 Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev.Home page
J. S. Johansen, B. V. Jensen, A. Roslind, D. Nielsen, and P. A. Price
Serum YKL-40, A New Prognostic Biomarker in Cancer Patients?
Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., February 1, 2006; 15(2): 194 - 202.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Clin. Chem.Home page
G. Soletormos, P. Hyltoft Petersen, and P. Dombernowsky
Progression Criteria for Cancer Antigen 15.3 and Carcinoembryonic Antigen in Metastatic Breast Cancer Compared by Computer Simulation of Marker Data
Clin. Chem., July 1, 2000; 46(7): 939 - 949.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1993 by the American Association for Clinical Chemistry.