4.4 Article

Urine metabolite profiling offers potential early diagnosis of oral cancer

期刊

METABOLOMICS
卷 8, 期 2, 页码 220-231

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11306-011-0302-7

关键词

Oral cancer; Metabonomics; Metabolomics; Oral squamous cell carcinoma; Oral leukoplakia; Urine; Gas chromatography-mass spectrometry; Multivariate statistical analysis; Receiver operating characteristic

资金

  1. National Basic Research Program of China [2007CB914700]
  2. National Science and Technology Major Project [2009ZX10005-020]
  3. National Science Foundation of China [20775048]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Oral cancer is the sixth most common human cancer, with a high morbidity rate and an overall 5-year survival rate of less than 50%. It is often not diagnosed until it has reached an advanced stage. Therefore, an early diagnostic and stratification strategy is of great importance for oral cancer. In the current study, urine samples of patients with oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC, n = 37), oral leukoplakia (OLK, n = 32) and healthy subjects (n = 34) were analyzed by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS). Using multivariate statistical analysis, the urinary metabolite profiles of OSCC, OLK and healthy control samples can be clearly discriminated and a panel of differentially expressed metabolites was obtained. Metabolites, valine and 6-hydroxynicotic acid, in combination yielded an accuracy of 98.9%, sensitivity of 94.4%, specificity of 91.4%, and positive predictive value of 91.9% in distinguishing OSCC from the controls. The combination of three differential metabolites, 6-hydroxynicotic acid, cysteine, and tyrosine, was able to discriminate between OSCC and OLK with an accuracy of 92.7%, sensitivity of 85.0%, specificity of 89.7%, and positive predictive value of 91.9%. This study demonstrated that the metabolite markers derived from this urinary metabolite profiling approach may hold promise as a diagnostic tool for early stage OSCC and its differentiation from other oral conditions.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据