4.7 Article

Linc-ing Circulating Long Non-coding RNAs to the Diagnosis and Malignant Prediction of Intraductal Papillary Mucinous Neoplasms of the Pancreas

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 7, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-09754-5

关键词

-

资金

  1. State of Florida and the Florida Academic Cancer Center Alliance (FACCA), Innovation Award Funding from Moffitt Cancer Center
  2. American Cancer Society [93-032-16]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is an aggressive disease that lacks effective biomarkers for early detection. We hypothesized that circulating long non-coding RNAs (lncRNAs) may act as diagnostic markers of incidentally-detected cystic PDAC precursors known as intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMNs) and predictors of their pathology/histological classification. Using NanoString nCounter (R) technology, we measured the abundance of 28 candidate lncRNAs in pre-operative plasma from a cohort of pathologically-confirmed IPMN cases of various grades of severity and non-diseased controls. Results showed that two lncRNAs (GAS5 and SRA) aided in differentiating IPMNs from controls. An 8-lncRNA signature (including ADARB2-AS1, ANRIL, GLIS3-AS1, LINC00472, MEG3, PANDA, PVT1, and UCA1) had greater accuracy than standard clinical and radiologic features in distinguishing 'aggressive/malignant' IPMNs that warrant surgical removal from 'indolent/benign' IPMNs that can be observed. When the 8-lncRNA signature was combined with plasma miRNA data and quantitative 'radiomic' imaging features, the accuracy of predicting IPMN pathological classification improved. Our findings provide novel information on the ability to detect lncRNAs in plasma from patients with IPMNs and suggest that an lncRNA-based blood test may have utility as a diagnostic adjunct for identifying IPMNs and their pathology, especially when incorporated with biomarkers such as miRNAs, quantitative imaging features, and clinical data.

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

4.7
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