Article Text

PDF
Correspondence
Author's response: Inconsistent results or inconsistent methods? A plea for standardisation of biomarker sampling in mesothelioma studies
  1. Jenette Creaney1,2,
  2. Bruce W S Robinson1,2,3
  1. 1 National Centre for Asbestos Related Diseases, School of Medicine and Pharmacology, University of Western Australia, Nedlands, Western Australia, Australia
  2. 2 The Australian Mesothelioma Tissue Bank, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Nedlands, Western Australia, Australia
  3. 3 Department of Respiratory Medicine, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Nedlands, Western Australia, Australia
  1. Correspondence to Dr Jenette Creaney, National Centre for Asbestos Related Diseases, School of Medicine and Pharmacology, University of Western Australia, Harry Perkins Building, 5th Floor, QQ Block, 6 Verdun St, Nedlands, WA 6009, Australia; jenette.creaney{at}uwa.edu.au

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Dr Blyth raises some important issues regarding the interpretation of malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) biomarker studies. First, the effects of confounders, including healing and/or inflammatory factors on biomarker levels; second, the reproducibility of biomarker results between centres.

In our independent evaluation of the proposed MPM biomarker fibulin-3, we considered some of the confounders he suggests—for instance, body mass index and renal function—which were not significant determinants of the diagnostic use of fibulin-3; and the neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio, which was reported and adjusted for in multivariate models. We agree that timing with respect to talc pleurodesis should be acknowledged in papers because of the potential effects …

View Full Text

Request permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Linked Articles