4.6 Article

Development of the Serum α-Fetoprotein Reference Range in Patients with Beckwith-Wiedemann Spectrum

期刊

JOURNAL OF PEDIATRICS
卷 212, 期 -, 页码 195-+

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2019.05.051

关键词

-

资金

  1. Alex's Lemonade Stand Foundation
  2. National Institutes of Health [K08 CA193915]
  3. St. Baldrick's Foundation
  4. Orphan Disease Center in the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective To establish reference ranges for serum alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) at various ages in patients with Beckwith-Wiedemann spectrum (BWSp), to better predict the risk for hepatoblastoma in this population. Study design A retrospective analysis of AFP measurements collected from patients with BWSp was performed. Factors including sex, prematurity, molecular diagnosis of patients, and performing laboratory were evaluated for significant differences. In total, 1372 AFP values were collected from 147 patients and the predictive AFP values at various ages were calculated to establish reference ranges. Mixed-effects polynomial regression models were used to study various potential factors affecting log(AFP) values. Results Overall, predicted AFP values declined to normal range for age (<10 ng/mL) by 14 months old. Patient sex and performing laboratory were found not to influence values. A significant difference was demonstrated between premature and nonpremature patients, and separate reference values were established. Significant differences in the predicted AFP value were not broadly apparent between molecular subtypes; however, interpretation was limited due to the small sample size of some of these subtypes. Conclusions Predictive AFP values were created for premature and nonpremature patients with BWSp to aid with interpretation and monitoring of the risk for hepatoblastoma. Further analysis is needed to determine whether AFP values differ within the less common molecular subtypes of patients with BWSsp.

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

4.6
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