BMC gastroenterology · 2025
CA19-9/DBil: a promising indicator to distinguish between CA19-9-elevated pancreatic head-type autoimmune pancreatitis and pancreatic head cancer.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Xi Wenfeng, Liao Wanying, Guo Tao, Jiang Qingwei, Bai Xiaoyin, Wu Xi, Feng Yunlu, Zhang Shengyu, Wu Dongsheng, Wang Qiang, Yang Aiming
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Pancreatic head-type autoimmune pancreatitis (PH-AIP) with elevated CA19-9 is sometimes difficult to distinguish from pancreatic head cancer (PHC) with elevated CA19-9. At times, IgG4 proves inadequate in offering assistance. The study aimed to elucidate the performance of CA19-9/DBil in distinguishing between the two conditions.
METHODS: This was a retrospective study. We collected serologic indicators from participants in PH-AIP and PHC Group. Three logistic regression equations were established ranging from non-adjustment (Model 1, only CA19-9/DBil included) to adjusting for sex, age, and CEA (Model 2 and Model 3) to explore the relationship between CA19-9/DBil and PH-AIP probability. ROC, Decision Curve Analysis (DCA), calibration curve were conducted. P for AUCs and net reclassification improvements (NRI) were computed to evaluate differences in discrimination and the improvement in risk reclassification between models.
RESULTS: The study included 90 PHC and 35 PH-AIP patients, all with elevated CA19-9. The ORs for CA19-9/DBil in three models were similar (0.915 to 0.921). ROC revealed that Model 1 had an AUC of 0.772. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy at the best threshold were all > 0.7. Model 1, although simple, was not inferior in its discriminative ability compared to complex models: the difference in discrimination between Model 1 and each of two adjusted models was not statistically significant (P > 0.05, both AUC and NRI). Additionally, calibration curve and DCA suggested that Model 1 had good calibration and clinical utility.
CONCLUSIONS: CA19-9/DBil exhibited promising diagnostic performance in differentiating between CA19-9-elevated PH-AIP and PHC.
METHODS: This was a retrospective study. We collected serologic indicators from participants in PH-AIP and PHC Group. Three logistic regression equations were established ranging from non-adjustment (Model 1, only CA19-9/DBil included) to adjusting for sex, age, and CEA (Model 2 and Model 3) to explore the relationship between CA19-9/DBil and PH-AIP probability. ROC, Decision Curve Analysis (DCA), calibration curve were conducted. P for AUCs and net reclassification improvements (NRI) were computed to evaluate differences in discrimination and the improvement in risk reclassification between models.
RESULTS: The study included 90 PHC and 35 PH-AIP patients, all with elevated CA19-9. The ORs for CA19-9/DBil in three models were similar (0.915 to 0.921). ROC revealed that Model 1 had an AUC of 0.772. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy at the best threshold were all > 0.7. Model 1, although simple, was not inferior in its discriminative ability compared to complex models: the difference in discrimination between Model 1 and each of two adjusted models was not statistically significant (P > 0.05, both AUC and NRI). Additionally, calibration curve and DCA suggested that Model 1 had good calibration and clinical utility.
CONCLUSIONS: CA19-9/DBil exhibited promising diagnostic performance in differentiating between CA19-9-elevated PH-AIP and PHC.