Lori J Sokoll

Dr. Lori J Sokoll

orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

27Years (2000-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
7 January 2016 in Clinical Proteomics
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
CCChristopher A. Crutchfield
Christopher A. Crutchfield
STStefani Thomas
Stefani Thomas
LSLori J Sokoll
Lori J Sokoll
DCDaniel W. Chan
Daniel W. Chan
The greatest unmet needs in biomarker discovery are those discoveries that lead to the development of clinical diagnostic tests. These clinical diagnostic tests can provide early intervention when a patient would present otherwise healthy (e.g., cancer or cardiovascular disease) and aid clinical decision making with improved clinical outcomes. The past two decades have seen significant technological improvements in the analytical capabilities of mass spectrometers. Mass spectrometers are unique in that they can directly analyze any biological molecule susceptible to ionization. The biological studies of human metabolites and proteins using contemporary mass spectrometry technology (metabolomics and proteomics, respectively) has been ongoing for over a decade. Some of these studies have resulted in exciting insights into human biology. However, relatively few biomarkers have been translated into clinical tests. This review will discuss some key technological developments that have occurred over this time with an emphasis on technologies that will create new avenues for biomarker discovery.

1 May 2010 in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
LSLori J Sokoll
Lori J Sokoll
MSMartin G. Sanda
Martin G. Sanda
ZFZiding Feng
Ziding Feng
JKJacob Kagan
Jacob Kagan
IMIsaac A. Mizrahi
Isaac A. Mizrahi
DCDaniel W. Chan
Daniel W. Chan
Background: The free prostate-specific antigen (PSA) isoform, [−2]proPSA, has been shown to be associated with prostate cancer. The study objective was to characterize the clinical utility of serum [−2]proPSA for prostate cancer detection and assess its association with aggressive disease. Methods: From among 669 subjects in a prospective prostate cancer detection study at four National Cancer Institute Early Detection Research Network clinical validation centers, 566 were eligible. Serum PSA, free PSA, and [−2]proPSA were measured (Beckman Coulter Access 2 Analyzer). Results: Two hundred and forty-five (43%) of the 566 participants had prostate cancer on biopsy. At 70% specificity, the sensitivity of %[−2]proPSA ([−2]proPSA/fPSA) was 54% [95% confidence interval (CI), 48-61%; null hypothesis, 40%]. Including %[−2]proPSA in a multivariate prediction model incorporating PSA and %fPSA improved the performance (P < 0.01). In the 2 to 4 ng/mL PSA range, %[−2]proPSA outperformed %fPSA (receiver operator characteristic-areas under the curve, 0.73 versus 0.61; P = 0.01). At 80% sensitivity, %[−2]proPSA had significantly higher specificity (51.6%; 95% CI, 41.2-61.8%) than PSA (29.9%; 95% CI, 21.0-40.0%) and %fPSA (28.9%; 95% CI, 20.1-39.0%). In the 2 to 10 ng/mL PSA range, a multivariate model had significant improvement (area under the curve, 0.76) over individual PSA forms (P < 0.01 to <0.0001). At 80% sensitivity, the specificity of %[−2]proPSA (44.9%; 95% CI, 38.4-51.5%) was significantly higher than PSA (30.8%; 95% CI, 24.9-37.1%) and relatively higher than %fPSA (34.6%; 95% CI, 28.5-41.4%). %[−2]proPSA increased with increasing Gleason score (P < 0.001) and was higher in aggressive cancers (P = 0.03). Conclusions: In this prospective study, %[−2]proPSA showed potential clinical utility for improving prostate cancer detection and was related to the risk of aggressive disease. Impact: The addition of %[−2]proPSA could affect the early detection of prostate cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 19(5); 1193–200. ©2010 AACR.

9 February 2021 in Circulation
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
TMThomas S. Metkus
Thomas S. Metkus
LSLori J Sokoll
Lori J Sokoll
ABAndreas S. Barth
Andreas S. Barth
MCMatthew J. Czarny
Matthew J. Czarny
AHAllison G. Hays
Allison G. Hays
RHRani K. Hasan
Rani K. Hasan
Background: Knowledge gaps remain in the epidemiology and clinical implications of myocardial injury in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We aimed to determine the prevalence and outcomes of myocardial injury in severe COVID-19 compared with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) unrelated to COVID-19. Methods: We included intubated patients with COVID-19 from 5 hospitals between March 15 and June 11, 2020, with troponin levels assessed. We compared them with patients from a cohort study of myocardial injury in ARDS and performed survival analysis with primary outcome of in-hospital death associated with myocardial injury. In addition, we performed linear regression to identify clinical factors associated with myocardial injury in COVID-19. Results: Of 243 intubated patients with COVID-19, 51% had troponin levels above the upper limit of normal. Chronic kidney disease, lactate, ferritin, and fibrinogen were associated with myocardial injury. Mortality was 22.7% among patients with COVID-19 with troponin under the upper limit of normal and 61.5% for those with troponin levels >10 times the upper limit of normal ( P <0.001). The association of myocardial injury with mortality was not statistically significant after adjusting for age, sex, and multisystem organ dysfunction. Compared with patients with ARDS without COVID-19, patients with COVID-19 were older and had higher creatinine levels and less favorable vital signs. After adjustment, COVID-19–related ARDS was associated with lower odds of myocardial injury compared with non–COVID-19–related ARDS (odds ratio, 0.55 [95% CI, 0.36–0.84]; P =0.005). Conclusions: Myocardial injury in severe COVID-19 is a function of baseline comorbidities, advanced age, and multisystem organ dysfunction, similar to traditional ARDS. The adverse prognosis of myocardial injury in COVID-19 relates largely to multisystem organ involvement and critical illness.

15 July 2003
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
BWBrant G Wang
Brant G Wang
HHHan-Yao Huang
Han-Yao Huang
YCYu-Chi Chen
Yu-Chi Chen
RBRobert E Bristow
Robert E Bristow
KKKeyanunoosh Kassauei
Keyanunoosh Kassauei
ISIe-Ming Shih
Ie-Ming Shih

1 October 2000 in Clinical Chemistry
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
LSLori J Sokoll
Lori J Sokoll
HDHelen Drew
Helen Drew
RURobert Udelsman
Robert Udelsman
Background: Immunoassays for parathyroid hormone (PTH), with short incubation times and results available in <15 min, have allowed intraoperative monitoring of the success of parathyroid surgery. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the analytical performance of a rapid PTH assay and its clinical performance in a series of 200 patients. Methods: PTH was measured with a modified immunochemiluminometric assay with a 7-min incubation time (QuiCk-IntraOperative™ Intact PTH assay). The rapid assay was compared with results in a central laboratory (immunoradiometric assay) in 44 EDTA-plasma specimens. The rapid assay was used intraoperatively in 200 consecutive cases with specimens analyzed before and 5–10 min after resection of the hypersecreting parathyroid gland(s). Results: Intraassay imprecision was 12% at 28 ng/L and 11% at 278 ng/L. Regression analysis of results of the rapid PTH assay and the IRMA PTH assay in 44 parathyroidectomy patients yielded y = 1.26x − 12 ng/L, Sy|x = 26.3 ng/L, r = 0.984, and in 40 of 44 patients with values <200 ng/L, y = 1.02x + 1.9, Sy|x = 13.9, r = 0.947. In the 195 cases using intraoperative PTH testing with complete results and defined clinical outcomes, the overall accuracy of the assay in predicting surgical success was 88% using the criterion of a 50% decrease at 5–10 min and 97% including the subset of patients with delayed decreases of PTH. Conclusions: The rapid PTH assay had excellent analytical performance and excellent agreement with the PTH immunoradiometric assay and predicted the success of parathyroid surgery in this large series of consecutive patients.

1 October 2012 in Journal of Urology
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
JTJeffrey J. Tosoian
Jeffrey J. Tosoian
SLStacy Loeb
Stacy Loeb
ZFZhaoyong Feng
Zhaoyong Feng
SISumit Isharwal
Sumit Isharwal
PLPatricia Landis
Patricia Landis
LSLori J Sokoll
Lori J Sokoll
Previous studies have suggested an association between [-2]proPSA expression and prostate cancer detection. Less is known about the usefulness of this marker in following patients with prostate cancer on active surveillance. Thus, we examined the relationship between [-2]proPSA and biopsy results in men enrolled in an active surveillance program. In 167 men from our institutional active surveillance program we used Cox proportional hazards models to examine the relationship between [-2]proPSA and annual surveillance biopsy results. The outcome of interest was biopsy reclassification (Gleason score 7 or greater, more than 2 positive biopsy cores or more than 50% involvement of any core with cancer). We also examined the association of biopsy results with total prostate specific antigen, %fPSA, [-2]proPSA/%fPSA and the Beckman Coulter Prostate Health Index phi ([-2]proPSA/free prostate specific antigen) × (total prostate specific antigen)(½)). While on active surveillance (median time from diagnosis 4.3 years), 63 (37.7%) men demonstrated biopsy reclassification based on the previously mentioned criteria, including 28 (16.7%) of whom had reclassification based on Gleason score upgrading (Gleason score 7 or greater). Baseline and longitudinal %fPSA, %[-2]proPSA, [-2]proPSA/%fPSA and phi measurements were significantly associated with biopsy reclassification, and %[-2]proPSA and phi provided the greatest predictive accuracy for high grade cancer. In men on active surveillance, measures based on [-2]proPSA such as phi appear to provide improved prediction of biopsy reclassification during followup. Additional validation is warranted to determine whether clinically useful thresholds can be defined, and to better characterize the role of %[-2]proPSA and phi in conjunction with other markers in monitoring patients enrolled in active surveillance.