A New Method for Early Screening of Gastric Cancer (G17 and CA724 Dual-Labeled Time-Resolved Fluorescence Immunoassay)

Abstract

Gastric carcinoma (GC) is one of the most common malignancies in the world with the great early screening challenges. The study is aimed at establishing a new detection method for early screening GC using time-resolved fluorescence immunoassay (TRFIA) via quantitative detection of gastrin-17 (G-17) and carbohydrate antigen 724 (CA724) in serum. Time-resolved analyzer measured the fluorescence intensity. The standards of G-17/CA724 were used for drawing the standard curve, which is used to calculate the concentration of G-17 and CA724 in serum sample. The sensitivity for G-17 was 0.54 pg/mL and for CA724 was 0.28 U/mL with a wide-range analyze concentration (0.1-1000) pg/mL or U/mL. The average recoveries ranged from 100.52% to 110.30% for G-17 and 103.02% to 116.00% for CA724. All CVs of the intra- and interassay were below 10% with high specificity. There was a high Pearson coefficient between this TRFIA method and the commercially available kits (Pearson r 0.9117 for G-17 and 0.9449 for CA724). Additionally, the cutoff value was 88.41 pg/mL and 5.47 U/mL for CA724 in health subjects. This study established a TRFIA method for simultaneous detection of the concentrations of G-17 and CA724 in serum, which provide a new method for sensitive, accurate, and specific early screening of gastric cancer.

Retracted: A New Method for Early Screening of Gastric Cancer (G17 and CA724 Dual‐Labeled Time‐Resolved Fluorescence Immunoassay)

“…This article has been retracted by Hindawi following an investigation undertaken by the publisher [ 1 ]. This investigation has uncovered evidence of one or more of the following indicators of systematic manipulation of the publication process: Discrepancies in scope Discrepancies in the description of the research reported Discrepancies between the availability of data and the research described Inappropriate citations Incoherent, meaningless and/or irrelevant content included in the article Peer-review manipulation …”

“…This article has been retracted by Hindawi following an investigation undertaken by the publisher [1]. This investigation has uncovered evidence of one or more of the following indicators of systematic manipulation of the publication process:…”