4.5 Article

Audit of the autoantibody test, EarlyCDT (R)-Lung, in 1600 patients: An evaluation of its performance in routine clinical practice

Journal

LUNG CANCER
Volume 83, Issue 1, Pages 51-55

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.lungcan.2013.10.008

Keywords

Lung cancer; Early detection; Autoantibodies; Clinical test; Biomarkers; Blood test; Tumor-associated antigens

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: EarlyCDT (R)-Lung may enhance detection of early stage lung cancer by aiding physicians in assessing high-risk patients through measurement of biological markers (i.e., autoantibodies). The test's performance characteristics in routine clinical practice were evaluated by auditing clinical outcomes of 1613 US patients deemed at high risk for lung cancer by their physician, who ordered the EarlyCDT-Lung test for their patient. Methods: Clinical outcomes for all 1613 patients who provided HIPAA authorization are reported. Clinical data were collected from each patient's treating physician. Pathology reports when available were reviewed for diagnostic classification. Staging was assessed on histology, otherwise on imaging. Results: Six month follow-up for the positives/negatives was 99%/93%. Sixty-one patients (4%) were identified with lung cancer, 25 of whom tested positive by EarlyCDT-Lung (sensitivity = 41%). A positive EarlyCDT-Lung test on the current panel was associated with a 5.4-fold increase in lung cancer incidence versus a negative. Importantly, 57% (8/14) of non-small cell lung cancers detected as positive (where stage was known) were stage I or II. Conclusions: EarlyCDT-Lung has been extensively tested and validated in case-control settings and has now been shown in this audit to perform in routine clinical practice as predicted. EarlyCDT-Lung may be a complementary tool to CT for detection of early lung cancer. (C) 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available