Clinical biochemistry · 2024
Malignant pleural effusion risk based on a novel tool using homocysteine and carcinoembryonic antigen in pleural fluid: A multicenter study.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеНазвание 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.
Santotoribio Jose D, Corral-Pérez Juan, Nuñez-Jurado David, Fatela-Cantillo Daniel, La Torre Ángela García-De, Orantes-Maroto Gabriel, Valle-Vázquez Luis Del, Castillo-Otero Daniel Del, Maira-Gonzalez Nieves, Cobos-Díaz Andrés, Guerrero Juan M, Lopez-Saez Juan-Bosco
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: This multicenter study aimed to evaluate the Malignant Pleural Effusion Risk (MPER) diagnostic accuracy in distinguishing between benign and malign pleural effusion.
METHODS: MPER is based on pleural fluid Homocysteine (HCY) and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) that were measured using three different methods. MPER was calculated by assessing a previously published probabilistic model: Probability (%) = 100× (1 + e-z)-1, where Z = 0.5471 × [HCY] + 0.3846 × [CEA]-8.2671.
RESULTS: A total of 301 patients were included (140 MPE). MPER demonstrated a high AUC (0.891), sensitivity (84.3 %), and specificity (80.7 %) with a cut-off > 35.3 %.
CONCLUSIONS: The MPER model demonstrated a high diagnostic accuracy supporting its use as a novel and powerful tool.
METHODS: MPER is based on pleural fluid Homocysteine (HCY) and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) that were measured using three different methods. MPER was calculated by assessing a previously published probabilistic model: Probability (%) = 100× (1 + e-z)-1, where Z = 0.5471 × [HCY] + 0.3846 × [CEA]-8.2671.
RESULTS: A total of 301 patients were included (140 MPE). MPER demonstrated a high AUC (0.891), sensitivity (84.3 %), and specificity (80.7 %) with a cut-off > 35.3 %.
CONCLUSIONS: The MPER model demonstrated a high diagnostic accuracy supporting its use as a novel and powerful tool.