Skip Navigation

JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2005 97(2):152; doi:10.1093/jnci/dji028
This Article
Right arrow Extract Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Request Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Rustin, G. J. S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Rustin, G. J. S.
Related Collections
Right arrowRelated Correspondence
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© 2005 Oxford University Press

CORRESPONDENCE

RESPONSE: Re: New Guidelines to Evaluate the Response to Treatment in Solid Tumors (Ovarian Cancer)

Gordon J. S. Rustin

Correspondence to: Gordon J. S. Rustin, MD, FRCP, Department of Medical Oncology, Mount Vernon Hospital, Northwood, Middlesex, HA62RN, UK (e-mail: gordon.rustin{at}whht.nhs.uk)

Taylor and Haverstick make an interesting observation that there was no interference in CA125 levels by HAMA when the AxSym CA125 assay (Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Park, IL) was tested, but there was interference when the ImmuLite 2000 CA125 assay (Diagnostic Products, Los Angeles, CA) was tested. Because of the potential interference with the CA125 assay by HAMA, the Gynaecologic Cancer Intergroup (GCIG) definition states that patients are not evaluable by CA125 if they have received mouse antibodies. We made this statement because most investigators would be unaware whether the assay used in their study could be influenced by HAMA. If investigators want to use the GCIG CA125 definition in patients who have received mouse antibodies, they should check whether their CA125 assay has been shown to be influenced by HAMA as demonstrated by Taylor and Haverstick. When reporting their results, investigators would need to state first that certain patients had received antibody infusions, and second, whether that antibody interfered with the CA125 assay used in those patients. Without those safeguards, results could be reported in which assays were used that were affected by prior exposure of the patient to mouse antibodies.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?

Related Correspondence

Re: New Guidelines to Evaluate the Response to Treatment in Solid Tumors (Ovarian Cancer)
Peyton T. Taylor and Doris Haverstick
J Natl Cancer Inst 2005 97: 151. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]




This Article
Right arrow Extract Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Request Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Rustin, G. J. S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Rustin, G. J. S.
Related Collections
Right arrowRelated Correspondence
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?