4.7 Article

Accuracy of the radioactive copper incorporation test in the diagnosis of Wilson disease

期刊

LIVER INTERNATIONAL
卷 38, 期 10, 页码 1860-1866

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/liv.13715

关键词

diagnosis; DNA analysis; radioactive copper incorporation test; Wilson disease

向作者/读者索取更多资源

city and predictive value were assessed for 24hours/2hours and 48hours/2hours Cu-64 ratios and Background & AimsIn Wilson disease (WD), copper accumulates in the liver and other tissues because of mutations in the ATP7B copper transporter gene. Early and effective anticopper treatment is crucial. However, routine diagnostic methods based on clinical findings, copper metabolism tests, liver biopsies and DNA analyses do not always provide a conclusive diagnosis. The aim was to evaluate radioactive copper incorporation as a diagnostic test. MethodsWe included cases with a diagnosis of WD supported by radiocopper testing and later, when available, confirmed by DNA analysis. Incorporation of Cu-64 was measured at 2, 24 and 48hours following intravenous injection. Diagnostic accuracy (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUC]), sensitivity, specifi compared with serum measurements of ceruloplasmin, copper, non-ceruloplasmin-bound copper and urinary 24-hours copper excretion. ResultsPatients having two pathogenic ATP7B mutations (homozygotes/compound heterozygotes) (n=74) had significantly lower 24hours/2hours and 48hours/2hours Cu-64 ratios than heterozygote controls (n=21) (mean 0.14 and 0.12 vs 0.49 and 0.63, respectively; both P<.001). Of note, 24hours/2hours and 48hours/2hours Cu-64 ratios had excellent diagnostic accuracy, with AUCs approaching 1, and only 24-hours urinary copper excretion displayed similar positive features. Other copper metabolism tests studied had lower accuracy, specificity and sensitivity. ConclusionsThe radioactive copper test had excellent diagnostic accuracy and may be useful in the evaluation of new therapies aimed at restoring ATP7B function.

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