4.7 Article

Combined detection of CA15-3, CEA, and SF in serum and tissue of canine mammary gland tumor patients

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 11, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-85029-4

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Key Research Projects, China [2016YFD0501008]
  2. Initial Scientific Research Foundation of Doctoral in Henan University of Animal Husbandry and Economy [2019HNUAHEDF025]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The levels of CA15-3, CEA, and SF were significantly higher in the malignant tumor group compared to the benign tumor group and healthy control group in canine mammary gland tumors. The combined detection of these three biomarkers increased the sensitivity and accuracy but decreased specificity in detecting malignant tumors.
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the levels and clinical diagnosis value of CA15-3, CEA, and SF in canine mammary gland tumors (CMGTs). In this study, the levels of tissues/serum CA15-3, CEA, and SF in 178 CMGT patients or healthy dogs were determined by ELISA and qRT-PCR assay. CA15-3, CEA, and SF levels of the malignant tumor group were significantly higher than that of the benign tumor group and the healthy control group. In the malignant tumor group, CA15-3 held a sensitivity of 51.8%, a specificity of 93.9%, and an accuracy of 76.8%. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of CEA were 44.6%, 84.1%, and 68.1% respectively. SF held a sensitivity of 62.5%, a specificity of 85.4%, and an accuracy of 76.1%. SF showed the highest sensitivity and CA15-3 showed the highest specificity. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of the combined detection of the three biomarkers in malignant tumor groups were 80.4%, 78.0%, and 80.0%, respectively, therefore combined detection increased sensitivity and accuracy but decreased specificity. In conclusion, the combined detection of serum/tissue markers CA15-3, CEA, and SF may improve the detection sensitivity of CMGTs, providing reference value for clinical application.

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