Search

Guruswamy et al (1983) pointed out that, at the time their paper was written, much of the interpretation of the Directive remained unclear. Since that time a further three 'daughter' Directives have been agreed and another dealing with a further four substances is currently under discussion. This article analyses the situation in the light of the experience of the last three years. It throws new light on the reason for the disagreement between the United Kingdom and the other Member States and suggests ways and means by which the resolution of this situation, which all agree to be desirable, could be achieved. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this research was to explore consumer perceptions of personalised nutrition and to compare these across three different levels of "medicalization": lifestyle assessment (no blood sampling); phenotypic assessment (blood sampling); genomic assessment (blood and buccal sampling). The protocol was developed from two pilot focus groups conducted in the UK. Two focus groups (one comprising only "older" individuals between 30 and 60 years old, the other of adults 18-65 yrs of age) were run in the UK, Spain, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Germany (N=16). The analysis (guided using grounded theory) suggested that personalised nutrition was perceived in terms of benefit to health and fitness and that convenience was an important driver of uptake. Negative attitudes were associated with internet delivery but not with personalised nutrition per se. Barriers to uptake were linked to broader technological issues associated with data protection, trust in regulator and service providers. Services that required a fee were expected to be of better quality and more secure. An efficacious, transparent and trustworthy regulatory framework for personalised nutrition is required to alleviate consumer concern. In addition, developing trust in service providers is important if such services to be successful., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Aim: Assessment of intra- and inter-laboratory variation in multi-centre real-time reverse-transcribed PCR (qRT-PCR)-based mRNA quantification of a prognostic marker in breast cancer using external quality assurance (EQA)., Methods: A questionnaire on the methodologies used and EQA calibrators were sent to 5 participating laboratories from 4 European countries, which measured mRNA levels of PITX2 splice variants and reference genes by qRT-PCR., Results: Differences in the methodology included PCR quantification methodology and equipment, RNA extraction and cDNA synthesis procedures. The intra-laboratory coefficient of variation (CV) ranged from 5 to 23%, and the inter-laboratory CV ranged from 17 to 30%. The inter-laboratory CV was reduced to 13% by using prediluted calibrators and by harmonising the data in the central QA laboratory. Additional normalisation using reference genes did not decrease the variation further., Conclusions: Both externally provided calibrators and centralised harmonisation are required to reduce the intra-laboratory variation in multi-centre qRT-PCR results to an acceptable level.

CA125 is currently the most widely used tumor marker for ovarian epithelial cancer. The aim of this article is to provide guidelines for the routine clinical use of CA125 in patients with ovarian cancer. Due to lack of sensitivity for stage I disease and lack of specificity, CA125 is of little value in the detection of early ovarian cancer. At present, therefore, CA125, either alone or in combination with other modalities, cannot be recommended for screening for ovarian cancer in asymptomatic women outside the context of a randomized controlled trial. Preoperative levels in postmenopausal women, however, may aid the differentiation of benign and malignant pelvic masses. Serial levels during chemotherapy for ovarian cancer are useful for assessing response to treatment. Although serial monitoring following initial chemotherapy can lead to the early detection of recurrent disease, the clinical value of this lead-time is unclear. CA125 is the ovarian cancer marker against which new markers for this malignancy should be judged.

Guiding principles are provided and discussed on how to inform the physician scientist and cancer researcher about quality control systems to enable a consistent assessment of the clinical value of tumor-associated biomarkers. Next to cancer research itself, the Receptor and Biomarker Group of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (RBG-EORTC) advises on methodologies, test kits and test reagents utilized for tumor biomarker determination. Tumor-associated biomarkers are important and clinically useful tools which can aid the early diagnosis of cancer, determine prognosis, predict therapy response, and monitor disease. With regard to clinical use of tumor-associated bio-markers, quality assessment and quality assurance programs of the RBG-EORTC are crucially important issues. Test reagents, assays, and procedures for tumor sample collection and handling should be standardized. Furthermore, standard operating procedures (SOPs) should be developed for each type of tumor specimen. Assay formats and the quality of the tumor biomarker assay results have to be monitored by continuous within- and inter-laboratory proficiency testing. With this approach, a major step forward in the knowledge and understanding of the biological role and the clinical utility of tumor-associated biomarkers would be anticipated.

High levels of urokinase-type plasminogen activator (uPA) and plasminogen activator inhibitor type 1 (PAI-1) in breast cancer tissue extracts have been associated with rapid disease progression. In these studies, different enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) kits have been applied for the quantification, and consequently the ranges of uPA and PAI-1 levels reported differ considerably. Therefore, the Receptor and Biomarker Study Group (RBSG) of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) and a consortium of the BIOMED-1 project 'Clinical Relevance of Proteases in Tumor Invasion and Metastasis' initiated three collaborative between-laboratory assessment trials aimed at controlling uPA and PAI-1 antigen analyses. For this purpose, two control preparations were produced from different sources: pooled human breast cancer specimens (QC-240893) and human breast cancer xenografts raised in nude mice (QC-101094). The lyophilized preparations were stable for prolonged times (at least 3 and 27 months respectively) at 4 degrees C. Furthermore, a good parallelism following dilution was found for uPA and PAI-1. The data from QC trial no. 1 clearly indicated that acceptable between-laboratory coefficients of variation (CVs) for uPA (<8.2%) and PAI-1 (<16.6%) in QC-240893 could be achieved when the same type of ELISA kit (American Diagnostica) was used. From the second trial, in which ten EORTC laboratories each received five identical lyophilized QC-101094 samples, it appeared that the within-laboratory variations for uPA and PAI-1 determinations obtained by 'experienced' laboratories were lower (<12.9%) than those from non-experienced laboratories (<36.4%). In a third QC trial, five BIOMED-1 laboratories, all of which employed ELISA procedures for uPA and PAI-1, participated in six subsequent quality assessment rounds receiving five samples of QC-101094. Although for each laboratory the within-run CVs for uPA as well as for PAI-1 were low (<7.8%), the between-run CVs were found to be considerably higher (up to 56.2% for uPA and to 27.6% for PAI-1). Consequently, because of the different ELISA formats used, the absolute analyte values measured in the different laboratories varied substantially. The use of 'common external standards' in the different ELISAs resulted in a significant reduction of the between-laboratory CVs from 61.3% to 15.7% (uPA) and from 42.1% to 19.1% (PAI-1). The present data demonstrate that in multicentre studies the same ELISA kit should be used, and that external quality assurance (QA) is mandatory. Furthermore, it appears from the present study that standardization of the protein assay as a tissular parameter is imperative.