1. The Clinical Problem -- 2. The Cell-surface Membrane in Malignancy -- 3. Radiation Carcinogenesis -- 4. Viruses and Cancer -- 5. Chemical Carcinogenesis -- 6. Testing for Carcinogens -- 7. Molecular Approaches to the Diagnosis of Cancer -- 8. Hormones and Cancer -- 9. Radiation Therapy -- 10. Cancer Chemotherapy I: Design and Mechanism of Action of Cytotoxic Drugs -- 11. Cancer Chemotherapy II: Laboratory to Clinic -- List of Contributors.
Zugriffsoptionen:
Die folgenden Links führen aus den jeweiligen lokalen Bibliotheken zum Volltext:
WOS: 000319871200001 ; PubMed ID: 23198723 ; Aims: Urinary 8-oxo-7,8-dihydro-2'-deoxyguanosine (8-oxodG) is a widely used biomarker of oxidative stress. However, variability between chromatographic and ELISA methods hampers interpretation of data, and this variability may increase should urine composition differ between individuals, leading to assay interference. Furthermore, optimal urine sampling conditions are not well defined. We performed inter-laboratory comparisons of 8-oxodG measurement between mass spectrometric-, electrochemical- and ELISA-based methods, using common within-technique calibrants to analyze 8-oxodG-spiked phosphate-buffered saline and urine samples. We also investigated human subject- and sample collection-related variables, as potential sources of variability. Results: Chromatographic assays showed high agreement across urines from different subjects, whereas ELISAs showed far more inter-laboratory variation and generally overestimated levels, compared to the chromatographic assays. Excretion rates in timed 'spot' samples showed strong correlations with 24 h excretion (the 'gold' standard) of urinary 8-oxodG (r(p) 0.67-0.90), although the associations were weaker for 8-oxodG adjusted for creatinine or specific gravity (SG). The within-individual excretion of 8-oxodG varied only moderately between days (CV 17% for 24 h excretion and 20% for first void, creatinine-corrected samples). Innovation: This is the first comprehensive study of both human and methodological factors influencing 8-oxodG measurement, providing key information for future studies with this important biomarker. Conclusion: ELISA variability is greater than chromatographic assay variability, and cannot determine absolute levels of 8-oxodG. Use of standardized calibrants greatly improves intra-technique agreement and, for the chromatographic assays, importantly allows integration of results for pooled analyses. If 24 h samples are not feasible, creatinine- or SG-adjusted first morning samples are recommended. ; ECNIS (Environmental Cancer Risk, Nutrition and Individual Susceptibility), a network of excellence operating within the European Union 6th Framework Program, Priority 5:"Food Quality and Safety" [FOOD-CT-2005-513943]; ECNIS2, a coordination and support action within the European Union FP7 Cooperation Theme 2 Food, Agriculture, Fisheries and Biotechnologies; CISBO; Ingeborg; Leo Dannin Foundation; National Science Council, TaiwanNational Science Council of Taiwan [NSC 97-2314-B-040-015-MY3, NSC 100-2628-B-040-001-MY4]; US NIHUnited States Department of Health & Human ServicesNational Institutes of Health (NIH) - USA [P30ES009089]; Instituto Carlos III division of the Government for Clinical Research [PI-10/00802, RD06/0045/0006]; Generalitat ValencianaGeneralitat Valenciana [ACOM/2012/238]; Swedish Council for Working Life and Social ResearchSwedish Research CouncilSwedish Research Council for Health Working Life & Welfare (Forte); TUBITAK (Technical and Scientific Research Council of Turkey)Turkiye Bilimsel ve Teknolojik Arastirma Kurumu (TUBITAK) [108Y049]; Grant Agency of the Czech RepublicGrant Agency of the Czech Republic [P503/11/0084]; Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg; UK Medical Research Council via a People Exchange Programme Research Leader Fellowship award [G1001808/98136] ; Some of the authors of this work were partners in, and this work was partly supported by, ECNIS (Environmental Cancer Risk, Nutrition and Individual Susceptibility), a network of excellence operating within the European Union 6th Framework Program, Priority 5:"Food Quality and Safety" (Contract No. FOOD-CT-2005-513943), and also ECNIS 2 , a coordination and support action within the European Union FP7 Cooperation Theme 2 Food, Agriculture, Fisheries and Biotechnologies.; P Moller and S Loft are supported by CISBO and the Ingeborg and Leo Dannin Foundation.; M-R Chao and C-W Hu acknowledge financial support from the National Science Council, Taiwan (Grants NSC 97-2314-B-040-015-MY3 and NSC 100-2628-B-040-001-MY4).; R Santella acknowledges the contribution of Qiao Wang, and support from US NIH P30ES009089.; G Saez and C Cerda acknowledge financial support from the Instituto Carlos III division of the Government for Clinical Research (Grants PI-10/00802 and RD06/0045/0006) and Grant ACOM/2012/238 from Generalitat Valenciana.; K Broberg, C Lindh, and M Hossain acknowledge financial support from the Swedish Council for Working Life and Social Research; H Orhan and N Senduran acknowledge financial support from TUBITAK (Technical and Scientific Research Council of Turkey), grant number 108Y049.; P Rossner, Jr. and RJ Sram acknowledge support from the Grant Agency of the Czech Republic (P503/11/0084).; L Barregard acknowledges financial support from the Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg.; MS Cooke acknowledges support from the UK Medical Research Council via a People Exchange Programme Research Leader Fellowship award (G1001808/98136).
