HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Submit an electronic Letter to the Editor about this paper Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (5) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Sölétormos, G. Articles by Dombernowsky, P. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Sölétormos, G. Articles by Dombernowsky, P. Related Collections Laboratory Management Proteomics and Protein Markers

Progression Criteria for Cancer Antigen 15.3 and Carcinoembryonic Antigen in Metastatic Breast Cancer Compared by Computer Simulation of Marker Data

Departments of
¹ Clinical Biochemistry and
² Oncology, Herlev Hospital, University of Copenhagen, 2720 Copenhagen, Denmark.
³ Department of Clinical Biochemistry, Hillerød Hospital, DK 3400 Hillerød, Denmark.

⁴ Department of Clinical Biochemistry, Odense University Hospital, 5000 Odense, Denmark.
^a Address correspondence to this author at: Department of Clinical Biochemistry, Hillerød Hospital, Helsevej 2, DK 3400 Hillerød, Denmark. Fax 45-48-24-00-67; E-mail geso{at}fa.dk

Background: We investigated the utility of computer simulation models for performance comparisons of different tumor marker assessment criteria to define progression or nonprogression of metastatic breast cancer.

Methods: Clinically relevant values for progressive cancer antigen 15.3 and carcinoembryonic antigen concentrations were combined with representative values for background variations in a computer simulation model. Fifteen criteria for assessment of longitudinal tumor marker data were obtained from the literature and computerized. Altogether, 7200 different patients, each based on 50 measurements, were simulated. With a sampling interval of 4 weeks, the monitoring period for each event was ~3.8 years.

Results: Modulation of the background variation, the starting concentrations, and the cutoffs enabled identification of criteria that were robust against false-positive signals of progression.

Conclusions: The computer simulation model is a fast, effective, and inexpensive approach for comparing the diagnostic potential of assessment criteria during clinically relevant conditions of steady-state and progressive disease. The model systems can be used to generate tumor marker assessment criteria for a variety of malignancies and to compare and optimize their diagnostic performance.

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

				G. Soletormos, P. H. Petersen, and D. Nielsen Computer-simulated Tumor-Marker Data Used to Compare Progression Criteria for Cytokeratin Tissue Polypeptide Antigen in Metastatic Breast Cancer Clin. Chem., November 1, 2001; 47(11): 2035 - 2037. [Full Text] [PDF]

				G. Soletormos and V. Schioler Description of a Computer Program to Assess Cancer Antigen 15.3, Carcinoembryonic Antigen, and Tissue Polypeptide Antigen Information during Monitoring of Metastatic Breast Cancer Clin. Chem., August 1, 2000; 46(8): 1106 - 1113. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]