4.7 Article

Raman spectroscopic techniques to detect ovarian cancer biomarkers in blood plasma

期刊

TALANTA
卷 189, 期 -, 页码 281-288

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.talanta.2018.06.084

关键词

Ovarian cancer; Diagnostics; Biospectroscopy; Raman; SERS; CA-125

资金

  1. Rosemere Cancer Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Robust diagnosis of ovarian cancer is crucial to improve patient outcomes. The lack of a single and accurate diagnostic approach necessitates the advent of novel methods in the field. In the present study, two spectroscopic techniques, Raman and surface-enhanced Raman spectroscopy (SERS) using silver nanoparticles, have been employed to identify signatures linked to cancer in blood. Blood plasma samples were collected from 27 patients with ovarian cancer and 28 with benign gynecological conditions, the majority of which had a prolapse. Early ovarian cancer cases were also included in the cohort (n = 17). The derived information was processed to account for differences between cancerous and healthy individuals and a support vector machine (SVM) algorithm was applied for classification. A subgroup analysis using CA-125 levels was also conducted to rule out that the observed segregation was due to CA-125 differences between patients and controls. Both techniques provided satisfactory diagnostic accuracy for the detection of ovarian cancer, with spontaneous Raman achieving 94% sensitivity and 96% specificity and SERS 87% sensitivity and 89% specificity. For early ovarian cancer, Raman achieved sensitivity and specificity of 93% and 97%, respectively, while SERS had 80% sensitivity and 94% specificity. Five spectral biomarkers were detected by both techniques and could be utilised as a panel of markers indicating carcinogenesis. CA-125 levels did not seem to undermine the high classification accuracies. This minimally invasive test may provide an alternative diagnostic and screening tool for ovarian cancer that is superior to other established blood-based biomarkers.

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