4.4 Article

Clinical application of plasma mitochondrial DNA content in patients with lung cancer

Journal

ONCOLOGY LETTERS
Volume 16, Issue 6, Pages 7074-7081

Publisher

SPANDIDOS PUBL LTD
DOI: 10.3892/ol.2018.9515

Keywords

lung cancer; mitochondrial DNA; quantitative polymerase chain reaction; prognosis; diagnosis

Categories

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81401631]
  2. Key Research and Develop Program of Hunan Province, China [2017WK2061]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Alterations of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) have been identified in several types of solid tumor. However, to the best of our knowledge, the clinical significance of plasma mtDNA content in lung cancer remains unknown. Thus, the current study explored the diagnostic and prognostic value of plasma mtDNA quantification in patients with lung cancer. Plasma mtDNA copy numbers of patients with lung cancer (n=128) and healthy individuals (n=107) were quantified by quantitative polymerase chain reaction. Plasma mtDNA copy numbers in patients and healthy controls were 0.89x10(4) and 1.37x10(4) copies/mu l, respectively (P<0.0001). Furthermore, lower plasma mtDNA content was associated with tumor size, lymph node metastases, distant metastases and serum carcinoembryonic antigen levels (P<0.05), but was not associated with pathological type, age, sex or main driver gene mutation status (P>0.05). Plasma mtDNA facilitated the detection of lung cancer at a threshold of 1.19x10(4) copies/mu l with a sensitivity of 71.1% and specificity of 70.1%, as determined by receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. Advanced stage (III and IV) patients with a lower mtDNA copy number (cutoff: 1.02x10(4) copies/mu l) tended to exhibit poorer prognosis (P<0.05). These results indicated that plasma mtDNA content is a promising and complementary candidate with tissue mtDNA for diagnosis and prognostic prediction for lung cancer.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available