| 1. |
- Baldetorp, Bo, et al.
(författare)
-
Reproducibility in DNA flow cytometric analysis of breast cancer: comparison of 12 laboratories' results for 67 sample homogenates
- 1995
-
Ingår i: Cytometry. - : Wiley. - 0196-4763 .- 1097-0320. ; 22:2, s. 115-127
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Flow cytometric (FCM) DNA analysis yields information on ploidy status and the S-phase fraction (SPF), variables of prognostic importance in breast cancer. The clinical value of the SPF is currently being evaluated in prospective randomized trials. The widespread use of FCM DNA analysis emphasizes the importance of reproducibility (both intra- and interlaboratory). In this study, 67 nuclear suspensions of breast cancer samples were analyzed by 12 laboratories routinely performing FCM DNA analysis in breast cancer. No general guidelines were imposed; each laboratory used its own standard protocols. For DNA ploidy status (diploid vs. non-diploid), agreement was complete for 79% (53/67) of the samples, compared with 64% (43/67) of samples when tetraploidy was considered [i.e., euploid (diploid+tetraploid) vs. aneuploid (the remaining non-diploid)]. For the SPF, pairwise comparison of the results of all 12 laboratories yielded a mean Spearman's rank correlation of 0.78 (range: 0.54-0.93). For those 39 samples being categorized in low or high SPF by all laboratories, all agreed in 14 samples (36%). Similar patterns were obtained with kappa measures, agreement being good for ploidy status (diploid vs. non-diploid; overall kappa = 0.87 and 0.74 for euploid vs. aneuploid), but moderate for the SPF [overall kappa = 0.47 (for low SPF vs. high SPF vs. "no SPF reported")]. Discrepancies were chiefly attributable to differences in the categorization of the S-phase values, rather than in FCM procedures, other critical differences being in the detection and interpretation of near-diploid and small non-diploid cell populations, the definition of tetraploidy, and the choice and execution of the method used for S-phase estimation. Based on the observations of this study, detailed guidelines for FCM analysis and interpretation of data are proposed in the Appendix. Some issues remain, however, e.g., to standardize a method for S-phase calculation and tetraploid definition.
|
|
| 2. |
- Bill-Axelson, Anna, et al.
(författare)
-
Radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting in localized prostate cancer : the Scandinavian prostate cancer group-4 randomized trial
- 2008
-
Ingår i: Journal of the National Cancer Institute. - : Oxford University Press. - 0027-8874 .- 1460-2105. ; 100:16, s. 1144-1154
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: The benefit of radical prostatectomy in patients with early prostate cancer has been assessed in only one randomized trial. In 2005, we reported that radical prostatectomy improved prostate cancer survival compared with watchful waiting after a median of 8.2 years of follow-up. We now report results after 3 more years of follow-up.METHODS: From October 1, 1989, through February 28, 1999, 695 men with clinically localized prostate cancer were randomly assigned to radical prostatectomy (n = 347) or watchful waiting (n = 348). Follow-up was complete through December 31, 2006, with histopathologic review and blinded evaluation of causes of death. Relative risks (RRs) were estimated using the Cox proportional hazards model. Statistical tests were two-sided.RESULTS: During a median of 10.8 years of follow-up (range = 3 weeks to 17.2 years), 137 men in the surgery group and 156 in the watchful waiting group died (P = .09). For 47 of the 347 men (13.5%) who were randomly assigned to surgery and 68 of the 348 men (19.5%) who were not, death was due to prostate cancer. The difference in cumulative incidence of death due to prostate cancer remained stable after about 10 years of follow-up. At 12 years, 12.5% of the surgery group and 17.9% of the watchful waiting group had died of prostate cancer (difference = 5.4%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.2 to 11.1%), for a relative risk of 0.65 (95% CI = 0.45 to 0.94; P = .03). The difference in cumulative incidence of distant metastases did not increase beyond 10 years of follow-up. At 12 years, 19.3% of men in the surgery group and 26% of men in the watchful waiting group had been diagnosed with distant metastases (difference = 6.7%, 95% CI = 0.2 to 13.2%), for a relative risk of 0.65 (95% CI = 0.47 to 0.88; P = .006). Among men who underwent radical prostatectomy, those with extracapsular tumor growth had 14 times the risk of prostate cancer death as those without it (RR = 14.2, 95% CI = 3.3 to 61.8; P < .001).CONCLUSION: Radical prostatectomy reduces prostate cancer mortality and risk of metastases with little or no further increase in benefit 10 or more years after surgery.
|
|
