Search

Gastric cancer comprises only 2% of cancer cases in the United States but represents the most prevalent cancer in less developed countries and the fourth most prevalent cancer world wide. [...]

Shawn R. Clinton (1) Kevin L. Beason (1) Sabrina Bryant (1) James T. Johnson (1) Margaret Jackson (1) Cynthia Wilson (2) Kay Holifield (3) Charlton Vincent (3) Margot Hall (1,4) [...]

One way to provide global illumination for the scientist who performs an interactive sweep through a 3D scalar dataset is to pre-compute global illumination, resample the radiance onto a 3D grid, then use it as a 3D texture. The basic approach of repeatedly extracting isosurfaces, illuminating them, and then building a 3D illumination grid suffers from the non-uniform sampling that arises from coupling the sampling of radiance with the sampling of isosurfaces. We demonstrate how the illumination step can be decoupled from the isosurface extraction step by illuminating the entire 3D scalar function as a 3-manifold in 4-dimensional space. By reformulating light transport in a higher dimension, one can sample a 3D volume without requiring the radiance samples to aggregate along individual isosurfaces in the pre-computed illumination grid. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Breast cancer is currently the third most common cause of cancer in the world. Circulating tumor antigens are often used as a minimally invasive tool for noting breast cancer progression. The objective of this study was to compare four tumor antigens (CA 15-3, CA 27.29, alpha-fetoprotein [AFP], and carcinoembryonic antigen [CEA]) for their diagnostic efficacy in breast cancer patients. It was hypothesized that CA 15-3 would proved to be superior to CA 27.29, CEA, and AFP in assay performance. Tumor marker assays were performed according to the manufacturers' directions. Assays used in this study were CA 15-3 and CA 27.29 (Fujirebio Diagnostics/Centocor Inc.), AFP (Abbott Inc.), and CEA (Hybritech Inc.). A total of 554 patient samples were obtained from an area hospital, plus 200 healthy adult samples which were used for the determination of normal reference intervals. The patients included patients with no disease (184), with non-malignant disease (11), with breast cancer (87), and with other types of cancer (272). Diagnostic percent sensitivities for each marker were: CA 15-3 (63%), CA 27.29 (39%), CEA (22%), and AFP (22%). Diagnostic specificities for each marker were comparable, ranging from 80-88%. Analytical parameters were evaluated for the assays and compared favorably. We concluded that CA 15-3 was the best tumor antigen for use as a diagnostic aid and monitoring agent.