Cargando…

Effects of Blood Collection Conditions on Ovarian Cancer Serum Markers

BACKGROUND: Evaluating diagnostic and early detection biomarkers requires comparing serum protein concentrations among biosamples ascertained from subjects with and without cancer. Efforts are generally made to standardize blood processing and storage conditions for cases and controls, but blood sam...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Thorpe, Jason D., Duan, Xiaobo, Forrest, Robin, Lowe, Kimberly, Brown, Lauren, Segal, Elliot, Nelson, Brad, Anderson, Garnet L., McIntosh, Martin, Urban, Nicole
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2007
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2093996/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18060075
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0001281
_version_ 1782138207484248064
author Thorpe, Jason D.
Duan, Xiaobo
Forrest, Robin
Lowe, Kimberly
Brown, Lauren
Segal, Elliot
Nelson, Brad
Anderson, Garnet L.
McIntosh, Martin
Urban, Nicole
author_facet Thorpe, Jason D.
Duan, Xiaobo
Forrest, Robin
Lowe, Kimberly
Brown, Lauren
Segal, Elliot
Nelson, Brad
Anderson, Garnet L.
McIntosh, Martin
Urban, Nicole
author_sort Thorpe, Jason D.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Evaluating diagnostic and early detection biomarkers requires comparing serum protein concentrations among biosamples ascertained from subjects with and without cancer. Efforts are generally made to standardize blood processing and storage conditions for cases and controls, but blood sample collection conditions cannot be completely controlled. For example, blood samples from cases are often obtained from persons aware of their diagnoses, and collected after fasting or in surgery, whereas blood samples from some controls may be obtained in different conditions, such as a clinic visit. By measuring the effects of differences in collection conditions on three different markers, we investigated the potential of these effects to bias validation studies. METHODOLOGY AND PRINCIPLE FINDINGS: We analyzed serum concentrations of three previously studied putative ovarian cancer serum biomarkers–CA 125, Prolactin and MIF–in healthy women, women with ovarian cancer undergoing gynecologic surgery, women undergoing surgery for benign ovary pathology, and women undergoing surgery with pathologically normal ovaries. For women undergoing surgery, a blood sample was collected either in the clinic 1 to 39 days prior to surgery, or on the day of surgery after anesthesia was administered but prior to the surgical procedure, or both. We found that one marker, prolactin, was dramatically affected by collection conditions, while CA 125 and MIF were unaffected. Prolactin levels were not different between case and control groups after accounting for the conditions of sample collection, suggesting that sample ascertainment could explain some or all of the previously reported results about its potential as a biomarker for ovarian cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Biomarker validation studies should use standardized collection conditions, use multiple control groups, and/or collect samples from cases prior to influence of diagnosis whenever feasible to detect and correct for potential biases associated with sample collection.
format Text
id pubmed-2093996
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2007
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-20939962007-12-05 Effects of Blood Collection Conditions on Ovarian Cancer Serum Markers Thorpe, Jason D. Duan, Xiaobo Forrest, Robin Lowe, Kimberly Brown, Lauren Segal, Elliot Nelson, Brad Anderson, Garnet L. McIntosh, Martin Urban, Nicole PLoS One Research Article BACKGROUND: Evaluating diagnostic and early detection biomarkers requires comparing serum protein concentrations among biosamples ascertained from subjects with and without cancer. Efforts are generally made to standardize blood processing and storage conditions for cases and controls, but blood sample collection conditions cannot be completely controlled. For example, blood samples from cases are often obtained from persons aware of their diagnoses, and collected after fasting or in surgery, whereas blood samples from some controls may be obtained in different conditions, such as a clinic visit. By measuring the effects of differences in collection conditions on three different markers, we investigated the potential of these effects to bias validation studies. METHODOLOGY AND PRINCIPLE FINDINGS: We analyzed serum concentrations of three previously studied putative ovarian cancer serum biomarkers–CA 125, Prolactin and MIF–in healthy women, women with ovarian cancer undergoing gynecologic surgery, women undergoing surgery for benign ovary pathology, and women undergoing surgery with pathologically normal ovaries. For women undergoing surgery, a blood sample was collected either in the clinic 1 to 39 days prior to surgery, or on the day of surgery after anesthesia was administered but prior to the surgical procedure, or both. We found that one marker, prolactin, was dramatically affected by collection conditions, while CA 125 and MIF were unaffected. Prolactin levels were not different between case and control groups after accounting for the conditions of sample collection, suggesting that sample ascertainment could explain some or all of the previously reported results about its potential as a biomarker for ovarian cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Biomarker validation studies should use standardized collection conditions, use multiple control groups, and/or collect samples from cases prior to influence of diagnosis whenever feasible to detect and correct for potential biases associated with sample collection. Public Library of Science 2007-12-05 /pmc/articles/PMC2093996/ /pubmed/18060075 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0001281 Text en Thorpe et al. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are properly credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Thorpe, Jason D.
Duan, Xiaobo
Forrest, Robin
Lowe, Kimberly
Brown, Lauren
Segal, Elliot
Nelson, Brad
Anderson, Garnet L.
McIntosh, Martin
Urban, Nicole
Effects of Blood Collection Conditions on Ovarian Cancer Serum Markers
title Effects of Blood Collection Conditions on Ovarian Cancer Serum Markers
title_full Effects of Blood Collection Conditions on Ovarian Cancer Serum Markers
title_fullStr Effects of Blood Collection Conditions on Ovarian Cancer Serum Markers
title_full_unstemmed Effects of Blood Collection Conditions on Ovarian Cancer Serum Markers
title_short Effects of Blood Collection Conditions on Ovarian Cancer Serum Markers
title_sort effects of blood collection conditions on ovarian cancer serum markers
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2093996/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18060075
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0001281
work_keys_str_mv AT thorpejasond effectsofbloodcollectionconditionsonovariancancerserummarkers
AT duanxiaobo effectsofbloodcollectionconditionsonovariancancerserummarkers
AT forrestrobin effectsofbloodcollectionconditionsonovariancancerserummarkers
AT lowekimberly effectsofbloodcollectionconditionsonovariancancerserummarkers
AT brownlauren effectsofbloodcollectionconditionsonovariancancerserummarkers
AT segalelliot effectsofbloodcollectionconditionsonovariancancerserummarkers
AT nelsonbrad effectsofbloodcollectionconditionsonovariancancerserummarkers
AT andersongarnetl effectsofbloodcollectionconditionsonovariancancerserummarkers
AT mcintoshmartin effectsofbloodcollectionconditionsonovariancancerserummarkers
AT urbannicole effectsofbloodcollectionconditionsonovariancancerserummarkers