A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Comparison of fifteen immunoassays for the measurement of serum MUC-1/CA 15-3 in breast cancer patients. | LitMetric

Background: Quality control results for serum MUC-1/CA 15-3 assays have always shown large discrepancies.

Methods: This multicentre study of 15 methods (labelled M1-M15) measured coded sera from 35 patients with breast cancer without recurrence (group 1), 46 patients at 1st metastasis (group 2), and 39 patients with advanced metastases (group 3). Results were compared using parametric statistics, ANOVA, principal component analysis, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves.

Results: Mean MUC-1/CA 15-3 concentrations varied widely (75.1-303.0 U/mL, 24.8%) among methods. The false positive (FP) rate for group 1 was 8/521 (1.5%); for group 2 and group 3 false negative (FN) results were 21/680 (3.1%) and 11/583 (1.9%), respectively. Using the ROC cut-offs, we found no FPs for group 1 and no FNs for group 3. However, group 2 showed 16 FNs. All p-values for Pearson's correlation were <0.0001 between methods, except for M11. When comparing methods using different antibodies, discordance rates reached a maximum of 15.2%. Principal component analysis revealed a grouping of methods using: CanAg monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) (M2, M7 and M12); Centocor/Fujirebio mAbs (M3-M6, M8-M10, M14-M15) and Biomira mAbs (M1 and M13); and Centocor/Fujirebio mAbs (M11).

Conclusions: Results were more consistent among methods using the same antibody type. Principal component analysis showed that antibody type was the strongest determinant of immunoassay results.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/CCLM.2009.213DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

muc-1/ca 15-3
12
group
9
serum muc-1/ca
8
breast cancer
8
group patients
8
group group
8
group fns
8
comparison fifteen
4
fifteen immunoassays
4
immunoassays measurement
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!