Anti-Prostate Specific Antigen monoclonal antibody

Background: Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) is a promising screening test, but its outcomes and cost-effectiveness remain uncertain. Purpose: To determine if biennial DBT is cost-effective in a screening setting, when compared with digital mammography (DM) in the Netherlands, and to quantify the uncertainty. Materials and Methods: In this study, performed from March 2018 to February 2019, the MIcrosimulation SCreening ANalysis model was used to conduct a probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA), consisting of 10 000 model runs with 1 000 000 women simulated per run. The Bayesian Cost-Effectiveness Analysis package and the Sheffield Accelerated Value of Information tool were used to process PSA outcomes. Two simulated cohorts born in 1970 were invited to undergo biennial screening between ages 50 and 74 years-one cohort was assigned to DM screening, and one was assigned to DBT screening. DM input parameters were based on data from the Dutch breast cancer screening program. DBT parameters were based on literature and expert opinion. Willingness-to-pay thresholds of 20000 ($22 000) and C35000 ($38500) per life-year gained (LYG) were considered. Effects and costs were discounted at 3.5% per year. Results: DBT resulted in a gain of 13 additional life-years per 1000 women invited to screening (7% increase, 13 of 193), followed over lifetime, compared with DM and led to 2% (four of 159) fewer false-positive results. DBT screening led to incremental discounted lifetime effects of 5.09 LYGs (95% confidence interval: -0.80, 9.70) and an increase in lifetime costs of (sic)137 555 ($151 311) per 1000 women (95% confidence interval: (sic)31 093 [$34 202], (sic)263 537 [$289 891]) compared with DM, resulting in a mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of (sic)27 023 ($29 725) per LYG. The probability of DBT being more cost-effective was 0.36 at (sic)20 000 and 0.66 at (sic)35 000 per LYG. Conclusion: Switching from digital mammography to biennial digital breast tomosynthesis is not cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of (sic)20 000 per life-year gained, but digital breast tomosynthesis has a higher probability of being more cost-effective than digital mammography at a threshold of (sic)35 000 per life-year gained. (C) RSNA, 2020

This work explores Electrochemical Impedance Spectroscopy (EIS) detection for a highly-sensitive quantification of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) in Faradaic (f-EIS) and non-Faradaic modes (nf-EIS). Immobilization of monoclonal antibody specific to PSA (anti-PSA) was performed using 1-ethyl-3-dimethylaminopropylcarbodiimide hydrochloride and N-hydroxysuccinimide crosslinking agents in order to conjugate carboxylic (-COOH) terminated group of 16-Mercaptoundecanoic acid with amine (-NH3+) on anti-PSA epitope. This approach offers simple and efficient approach to form a strong, covalently bound thiol-gold (S-Au) for a reliable SAM layer formation. Studies on the topographic of pristine Au-IDE surface were performed by Scanning Electron Microscopy and Energy Dispersive X-ray Spectroscopy techniques, meanwhile a 3-dimensional optical surface profiler, Atomic Force Microscopy and X-ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy techniques were used to validate the successful functionalization steps on the sensor transducer surface. Detection of PSA in f-EIS mode was carried out by measuring the response in charge transfer resistance (R-ct) and impedance change (Z), meanwhile in nf-EIS mode, the changes in device capacitance was monitored. In f-EIS mode, the sensor reveals a logarithmic detection of PSA in a range of 100 ng/ml down to 0.01 ng/ml in Phosphate Buffered Saline with a recorded sensitivity of 2.412 k Omega/log(10) ([PSA] ng/ml) and the limit of detection (LOD) down to 0.01 ng/ml. The nf-EIS detection mode yields a logarithmic detection range of 5000 ng/ml down to 0.5 ng/ml, with a sensitivity of 8.570 nF/log(10) ([PSA] ng/ml) and an LOD of 0.5 ng/ml. The developed bio-assay yields great device stability, specificity to PSA and repeatability of detection that would pave its way for the future development into portable lab-on-chip bio-sensing system. (C) 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.