Di 1 jun yi da xue xue bao = Academic journal of the first medical college of PLA · 2005
[Value of quantitative examination of urine MUC1 in bladder transitional cell carcinoma].
Аннотация на английскомСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Xiang Song-tao, Zhou Si-wei, Guan Wei, Hu Zhi-quan, Zhuang Qian-yuan, Ye Zhang-qun
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the value of quantitative examination of MUC 1 in the urine of patients with bladder transitional cell carcinoma (BTCC).
METHODS: Urine samples were obtained from 31 patients with BTCC for quantification of MUC 1 content by immunoradiometric analysis. The urine samples were also examined in 10 patients with cystitis glandularis, 10 with benign urine disease and 10 healthy volunteers. The differences in urine MUC1 content were statistically measured between the groups, between cancer patients of different clinical stages and classes, between primary and recurrent cancer patients, and between measurements taken before and after operation.
RESULTS: Urine MUC 1 was detected in all the patients. No significant differences were found between the groups, nor between patients with BTCC in all stages (P>0.05), or between primary and recurrent cancer patients (P>0.05). But MUC 1 contents showed significant difference before and after the operation in the cancer patients (P<0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Urine MUC 1 can not serve as the marker to screen and diagnose BTCC, but it can be useful in therapeutic effect and prognostic evaluation. Specific oncogene markers are more significant than oncogene phenotype markers in clinical diagnosis and screen of BTCC.
METHODS: Urine samples were obtained from 31 patients with BTCC for quantification of MUC 1 content by immunoradiometric analysis. The urine samples were also examined in 10 patients with cystitis glandularis, 10 with benign urine disease and 10 healthy volunteers. The differences in urine MUC1 content were statistically measured between the groups, between cancer patients of different clinical stages and classes, between primary and recurrent cancer patients, and between measurements taken before and after operation.
RESULTS: Urine MUC 1 was detected in all the patients. No significant differences were found between the groups, nor between patients with BTCC in all stages (P>0.05), or between primary and recurrent cancer patients (P>0.05). But MUC 1 contents showed significant difference before and after the operation in the cancer patients (P<0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Urine MUC 1 can not serve as the marker to screen and diagnose BTCC, but it can be useful in therapeutic effect and prognostic evaluation. Specific oncogene markers are more significant than oncogene phenotype markers in clinical diagnosis and screen of BTCC.