Table II

Comparison of five reports for prostate cancer diagnosis based on SELDI-TOF technologya

StudyChip typeDistinguishing peaks m/zbDiagnostic sensitivity and specificity
Petricoin et al. (39)Hydrophobic C162,092, 2,367, 2,582, 3,080, 4,819, 5,439, 18,22095%; 78–83%
Adam et al. (40)IMAC-Cu4,475, 5,074, 5,382, 7,024, 7,820, 8,141, 9,149, 9,507, 9,65683%; 97%
Qu et al. (41)IMAC-CuNon-cancer vs cancer: 3,963, 4,080, 6,542, 6,797, 6,949, 6,991, 7,024, 7,885, 8,067, 8,356, 9,656, 9,720 Healthy vs BPHc: 3,486, 4,071, 4,580, 5,298, 6,099, 7,054, 7,820, 7,844, 8,94397–100%; 97–100%
Banez et al. (42)WCX23,972, 8,226, 13,952, 16,087, 25,167, 33,27063%; 77%
IMAC-Cu3,960, 4,469, 9,713, 10,266, 22,83266%; 38%
Lehrer et al. (43)Hydrophobic H4Cancer and BPH vs controls:100% (specificity)
15,200, 15,900, 17,500
    Cancer vs BPH
    15,20082%; 67%
    15,90082%; 100%
    17,50064%; 67%
  • a This table is modified and expanded from Refs. 46 and 68.

  • b m/z ratios were rounded to whole numbers for simplicity. m/z ratios in bold represent those identified by Adam et al. (40) and Qu et al. (41) for differentiating cancer from non-cancer patients. The underlined m/z ratio represents a peak identified by Adam et al. (40) for differentiating cancer from non-cancer patients and by Qu et al. (41) for differentiating healthy individuals from patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia.

  • c BPH, benign prostatic hyperplasia.