Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2022
Potential of blood-based biomarker approaches in endometrium and breast cancer: a case-control comparison study.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Schuhn Anne, Tobar Tania Witte, Gahlawat Aoife Ward, Hauke Jana, Baumann Lukas, Okun Jürgen G, Nees Juliane
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Endometrial carcinoma is the second most common gynecological malignancy. Until today lacking a screening tool. A blood-based biomarker could help address this need.
METHODS: The expression levels of 30 acylcarnitines, 18 amino acids, 6 miRNAs, and 7 DNA methylation sites were measured in blood samples from 331 women (20 EC, 14 benign uterine lesions (benign), 140 breast cancers (BC), 157 controls). Areas under the ROC curves (AUC), sensitivity (sens.) and specificity (spec.) were computed to identify the variables best distinguishing.
RESULTS: The best top ten markers for the four comparisons (cancer vs. cancer-free; EC vs. BC, EC vs. controls; EC vs. benign), were identified via AUC. Malonylcarnitine distinguished best patients with EC from controls (AUC: 0.827, sens. 80%, spec. 73.1%) or BC (AUC: 0.819, sens. 84.3%, spec. 80%) being most notable. Tryptophan best differentiated benign from EC (AUC: 0.846, sens. 70%, spec. 92.9%).
CONCLUSIONS: The levels of the analyzed blood markers yielded promising results in the detection of EC and warrant further evaluation.
METHODS: The expression levels of 30 acylcarnitines, 18 amino acids, 6 miRNAs, and 7 DNA methylation sites were measured in blood samples from 331 women (20 EC, 14 benign uterine lesions (benign), 140 breast cancers (BC), 157 controls). Areas under the ROC curves (AUC), sensitivity (sens.) and specificity (spec.) were computed to identify the variables best distinguishing.
RESULTS: The best top ten markers for the four comparisons (cancer vs. cancer-free; EC vs. BC, EC vs. controls; EC vs. benign), were identified via AUC. Malonylcarnitine distinguished best patients with EC from controls (AUC: 0.827, sens. 80%, spec. 73.1%) or BC (AUC: 0.819, sens. 84.3%, spec. 80%) being most notable. Tryptophan best differentiated benign from EC (AUC: 0.846, sens. 70%, spec. 92.9%).
CONCLUSIONS: The levels of the analyzed blood markers yielded promising results in the detection of EC and warrant further evaluation.