Comparative evaluation of serologic tests for celiac disease: a European initiative toward standardization.

BACKGROUND: Serologic methods have been used widely to test for celiac disease and have gained importance in diagnostic definition and in new epidemiologic findings. However, there is no standardization, and there are no reference protocols and materials. METHODS: The European working group on Serological Screening for Celiac Disease has defined robust noncommercial test protocols for immunoglobulin (Ig)G and IgA gliadin antibodies and for IgA autoantibodies against endomysium and tissue transglutaminase. Standard curves were linear in the decisive range, and intra-assay variation coefficients were less than 5% to 10%. Calibration was performed with a group reference serum. Joint cutoff limits were used. Seven laboratories took part in the final collaborative study on 252 randomized sera classified by histology (103 pediatric and adult patients with active celiac disease, 89 disease control subjects, and 60 blood donors). RESULTS: IgA autoantibodies against endomysium and tissue transglutaminase rendered superior sensitivity (90% and 93%, respectively) and specificity (99% and 95%, respectively) over IgA and IgG gliadin antibodies. Tissue transglutaminase antibody testing showed superior receiver operating characteristic performance compared with gliadin antibodies. The K values for interlaboratory reproducibility showed superiority for IgA endomysium (0.93) in comparison with tissue transglutaminase antibodies (0.83) and gliadin antibodies (0.82 for IgG, 0.62 for IgA). CONCLUSIONS: Basic criteria of standardization and quality assessment must be fulfilled by any given test protocol proposed for serologic investigation of celiac disease. The working group has produced robust test protocols and reference materials available for standardization to further improve reliability of serologic testing for celiac disease.

Evaluation of tumor response, disease control, progression-free survival, and time to progression as potential surrogate end points in metastatic breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Overall survival (OS) can be observed only after prolonged follow-up, and any potential effect of first-line therapies on OS may be confounded by the effects of subsequent therapy. We investigated whether tumor response, disease control, progression-free survival (PFS), or time to progression (TTP) could be considered a valid surrogate for OS to assess the benefits of first-line therapies for patients with metastatic breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Individual patient data were collected on 3,953 patients in 11 randomized trials that compared an anthracycline (alone or in combination) with a taxane (alone or in combination with an anthracycline). Surrogacy was assessed through the correlation between the end points as well as through the correlation between the treatment effects on the end points. RESULTS: Tumor response (survival odds ratio [OR], 6.2; 95% CI, 5.3 to 7.0) and disease control (survival OR, 5.5; 95% CI, 4.8 to 6.3) were strongly associated with OS. PFS (rank correlation coefficient, 0.688; 95% CI, 0.686 to 0.690) and TTP (rank correlation coefficient, 0.682; 95% CI, 0.680 to 0.684) were moderately associated with OS. Response log ORs were strongly correlated with PFS log hazard ratios (linear coefficient [rho], 0.96; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.19). Response and disease control log ORs and PFS and TTP log hazard ratios were poorly correlated with log hazard ratios for OS, but the confidence limits of rho were too wide to be informative. CONCLUSION: No end point could be demonstrated as a good surrogate for OS in these trials. Tumor response may be an acceptable surrogate for PFS.