The new selective access analyser Cobas Integra 800 from Roche Diagnostics was evaluated in an international multicentre study at six sites. Routine simulation experiments showed good performance and full functionality of the instrument and provocation of anomalous situations generated no problems. The new features on Cobas Integra 800, namely clot detection and dispensing control, worked according to specifications. The imprecision of Cobas Integra 800 fulfilled the proposed quality specifications regarding imprecision of analytical systems for clinical chemistry with few exceptions. Claims for linearity, drift, and carry-over were all within the defined specifications, except urea linearity. Interference exists in some cases, as could be expected due to the chemistries applied. Accuracy met the proposed quality specifications, except in some special cases. Method comparisons with Cobas Integra 700 showed good agreement; comparisons with other analysis systems yielded in several cases explicable deviations. Practicability of Cobas Integra 800 met or exceeded the requirements for more than 95% of all attributes rated. The strong points of the new analysis system were reagent handling, long stability of calibration curves, high number of tests on board, compatibility of the sample carrier to other Roche systems, and the sample integrity check for more reliable analytical results. The improvement of the workflow offered by the 5-position rack and STAT handling like on Cobas Integra 800 makes the instrument attractive for further consolidation in the medium-sized laboratory, for dedicated use of special analytes, and/or as back-up in the large routine laboratory.
Aim: To investigate the potential of preoperative serum total testosterone (TT) in contributing to the definition of separate prostatectomy Gleason score (pGS) groups of the prostate cancer (PCa) population. Materials and Methods: The data of 220 patients operated on for PCa were retrospectively reviewed. No patient had previously received 5α-reductase inhibitor, luteinizing hormone-releasing analogs or testosterone replacement treatment. The patient population was grouped according to the pGS as 6 = 3+3, 7 = 3+4, 7 = 4+3 and 8-10. Eight variables were simultaneously investigated in each group: prostate-specific antigen (PSA), TT, free testosterone, age, percentage of positive prostate biopsy cores (P+), biopsy Gleason score (bGS), overall cancer volume estimated as percentage of prostate volume (V+) and prostate weight (Wi). Univariate analysis of variance (ANOVA), multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) and multivariate discriminant analysis (MDA) were the statistical methods used for evaluating the data. Results: There were 89 patients in pGS 6 = 3+3, 84 in pGS 7 = 3+4, 24 in pGS 7 = 4+3 and 23 in pGS 8-10. ANOVA showed that bGS (p < 0.0001), P+ (p < 0.0001), V+ (p < 0.0001), PSA (p = 0.0001), Wi (p = 0.0002) and TT (p = 0.01) were significantly different in the four pGS groups. MANOVA tests showed that only bGS (p < 0.0001), V+ (p = 0.0003), TT (p = 0.001) and, to a lesser extent, PSA (p = 0.06) were the significant variables that individually and independently contributed a significant amount to separation of the four pGS groups of the PCa population. MDA showed that the independent variables ranked as bGS (p < 0.0001), TT (p = 0.001), V+ (p = 0.001) and PSA (p = 0.06). Conclusions: Serum TT is a significant preoperative variable that independently contributes to separating the PCa population into pGS score groups. Pretreatment baseline serum TT levels should be measured and their inclusion in neural networks predicting PCa natural history be considered in the patient population diagnosed with PCa.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.