4.7 Article

Feasibly of CD24/CD11b as a Screening Test for Hematological Malignancies

期刊

JOURNAL OF PERSONALIZED MEDICINE
卷 11, 期 8, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jpm11080724

关键词

CD24; hematologic cancer; prevention; screening test; sensitivity; specificity; biomarker

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study evaluated the sensitivity and specificity of a CD24/CD11b blood test for detecting hematological malignancies, revealing promising potential as a screening tool for these types of cancers.
An estimated 1.24 million blood cancer cases occur annually worldwide, accounting for approximately 6% of all cancer cases. Currently, there are no standardized hematology cancer screening tests that are recommended for the general population. CD24 is a mucin-like cell surface molecule and P-selectin ligand, which plays a significant role in the maturation of B-lymphocytes and was found to be overexpressed in a number of hematological malignancies. Our primary aim was to assess the sensitivity and specificity of the CD24/CD11b-based blood test for the detection of hematological malignancies. Our cohort included 488 subjects with positive hematological cancer diagnosis (n = 122) and healthy subjects (n = 366). CD24/CD11b expression in peripheral blood leukocytes (PBLs) obtained from blood samples of participants was analyzed by flow cytometry. Our results demonstrated that the average levels of CD24/CD11b in healthy patients (21.7 +/- 9.0) were statistically significantly lower compared to levels of CD24/CD11b in cancer patients (29.5 +/- 18.7, p < 0.001). The highest levels of CD24/CD11b were found in multiple myeloma (39.1 +/- 23.6), followed by chronic myeloid leukemia (33.0 +/- 13.7) and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (32.3 +/- 13.3). The test had an overall sensitivity for hematologic cancers of 78.5% (95% CI, 70.7-86.3%) and specificity of 80.2% (95% CI, 76.1-84.3%). In conclusion, our findings indicate the feasibility of a CD24/CD11b-based blood test as a screening test of hematological malignancies.

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