...
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of clinical laboratory analysis. >Combination of preoperative NLR, PLR and CEA could increase the diagnostic efficacy for I‐III stage CRC
【24h】

Combination of preoperative NLR, PLR and CEA could increase the diagnostic efficacy for I‐III stage CRC

机译:术前NLR,PLR和CEA的组合可提高I-III期CRC的诊断效力

获取原文
           

摘要

BackgroundInflammation plays an important role in the development and progression of CRC. The members of inflammatory biomarkers, preoperative NLR and PLR, have been proved by numerous studies to be promising prognostic biomarkers for CRC. However, the diagnostic value of the two biomarkers in CRC remains unknown, and no study reported the combined diagnostic efficacy of NLR, PLR and CEA. MethodsFive hundred and fifty-nine patients with I-III stage CRC undergoing surgical resection and 559 gender- and age-matched healthy controls were enrolled in this retrospective study. NLR and PLR were calculated from preoperative peripheral blood cell count detected using white blood cell five classification by Sysmex XT-1800i Automated Hematology System and serum CEA were measured by electrochemiluminescence by ELECSYS 2010. The diagnostic performance of NLR, PLR and CEA for CRC was evaluated by ROC curve. ResultsLevels of NLR and PLR in the cases were significantly higher than them in the healthy controls. ROC curves comparison analyses showed that the diagnostic efficacy of NLR (AUC=.755, 95%CI=.728-.780) alone for CRC was significantly higher than PLR (AUC=.723, 95%CI=.696-.749, P =.037) and CEA (AUC=.690, 95%CI=.662-.717, P =.002) alone. In addition, the diagnostic efficacy of the combination of NLR, PLR and CEA(AUC=.831, 95%CI=.807-.852)for CRC was not only significantly higher than NLR alone but also higher than any combinations of the two of these three biomarkers ( P ConclusionOur study indicated that preoperative NLR could be a CRC diagnostic biomarker, even for early stage CRC, and the combination of NLR, PLR and CEA could significantly improve the diagnostic efficacy.
机译:背景炎症在CRC的发生和发展中起着重要作用。大量研究已证明炎症性生物标志物的成员,术前NLR和PLR有望成为CRC的预后生物标志物。但是,这两种生物标志物在CRC中的诊断价值仍然未知,并且没有研究报道NLR,PLR和CEA的联合诊断功效。方法回顾性分析了559例I-III期CRC外科手术切除患者和559名性别和年龄相匹配的健康对照者。根据Sysmex XT-1800i自动血液学系统使用白细胞五种分类检测的术前外周血细胞计数来计算NLR和PLR,并通过ELECSYS 2010用电化学发光法测量血清CEA。评估了NLR,PLR和CEA对CRC的诊断性能通过ROC曲线。结果患者的NLR和PLR水平明显高于健康对照者。 ROC曲线比较分析表明,仅NLR(AUC = .755,95%CI = .728-.780)对CRC的诊断效力显着高于PLR(AUC = .723,95%CI = .696-.749) ,P = .037)和CEA(AUC = .690,95%CI = .662-.717,P = .002)。此外,NLR,PLR和CEA的组合(AUC = .831,95%CI = .807-.852)对CRC的诊断功效不仅明显高于单独的NLR,而且也高于两者的任何组合这三个生物标志物中的P(结论)我们的研究表明,即使对于早期CRC,术前NLR仍可能是CRC的诊断生物标志物,NLR,PLR和CEA的组合可以显着提高诊断效力。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号