Sensitivity and specificity of the empirical lymphocyte genome sensitivity (LGS) assay: implications for improving cancer diagnostics
Anderson, Diana Najafzadeh, Mojgan Gopalan, Rajendran C. Ghaderi, Nader Scally, Andy J. Britland, Stephen T. Jacobs, B.J. Reynolds, P.D. Davies, J. Wright, A.L.
Anderson, Diana
Najafzadeh, Mojgan
Gopalan, Rajendran C.
Ghaderi, Nader
Scally, Andy J.
Britland, Stephen T.
Jacobs, B.J.
Reynolds, P.D.
Davies, J.
Wright, A.L.
Publication Date
2014-10-28
End of Embargo
Supervisor
Rights
Peer-Reviewed
Yes
Open Access status
closedAccess
closedAccess
closedAccess
Accepted for publication
2014-06-30
Institution
Department
Awarded
Embargo end date
Additional title
Abstract
Lymphocyte responses from 208 individuals: 20 with melanoma, 34 with colon cancer, and 4 with lung cancer (58), 18 with suspected melanoma, 28 with polyposis, and 10 with COPD (56), and 94 healthy volunteers were examined. The natural logarithm of the Olive tail moment (OTM) was plotted for exposure to UVA through 5 different agar depths (100 cell measurements/depth) and analyzed using a repeated measures regression model. Responses of patients with cancer plateaued after treatment with different UVA intensities, but returned toward control values for healthy volunteers. For precancerous conditions and suspected cancers, intermediate responses occurred. ROC analysis of mean log OTMs, for cancers plus precancerous/suspect conditions vs. controls, cancer vs. precancerous/suspect conditions plus controls, and cancer vs. controls, gave areas under the curve of 0.87, 0.89, and 0.93, respectively (P<0.001). Optimization allowed test sensitivity or specificity to approach 100% with acceptable complementary measures. This modified comet assay could represent a stand-alone test or an adjunct to other investigative procedures for detecting cancer.
Version
No full-text in the repository
Citation
Anderson D, Najafzadeh M, Gopalan R et al (2014) Sensitivity and specificity of the empirical lymphocyte genome sensitivity (LGS) assay: implications for improving cancer diagnostics. The FASEB Journal. 28(10): 4563-4570.
Link to publisher’s version
Link to published version
Link to Version of Record
Type
Article