4.1 Article

Application of MMP-7 and MMP-10 in Assisting the Diagnosis of Malignant Pleural Effusion

期刊

ASIAN PACIFIC JOURNAL OF CANCER PREVENTION
卷 13, 期 2, 页码 505-509

出版社

ASIAN PACIFIC ORGANIZATION CANCER PREVENTION
DOI: 10.7314/APJCP.2012.13.2.505

关键词

Matrix metalloproteinases; pleural effusion; diagnosis; cancer

类别

资金

  1. Liaoning Nature Science Fund [201102257]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Matrix metalloproteinases (MMP) are proteolytic enzymes that are essentially involved in turnover of the extracellular matrix (ECM). The aim was to investigate the diagnostic value of MMP-7 and MMP-10 as tumor markers in pleural effusion (PE) and evaluate the value of combining MMP-7, MMP-10 and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) assays as diagnostic aids for malignant cells. Materials and Methods: A total of 179 patients with PE (87 malignant and 92 benign) were included in this study. The levels of MMP-7 and MMP-10 were measured using ELISA. Results: Values for MMP-7 and MMP-10 were significantly higher in malignant PE than those in benign PE (P<0.01). Among all variables evaluated, logistic regression found that MMP-7 and MMP-10 were significantly correlated with the presence of malignant disease (P<0.01). Analysis of receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves showed that the area under the curve of MMP-10 (0.806) was significantly larger than that of MMP-7 (0.771) and CEA (0.789) (P<0.01). With parallel interpretation, the combination of MMP-10 and CEA achieved the higher sensitivity of 94.6%. The combination of MMP-7 and CEA in serial interpretation was able to boost the specificity to 95.7%. The combination of MMP-7, MMP-10 and CEA produced better sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV than MMP-7 and MMP-10 alone. Conclusion: MMP-7 and MMP-10 in PE may represent helpful adjuncts to conventional diagnostic tools in ruling out malignancy as a probable diagnosis, thus guiding the selection of patients who might benefit from further invasive procedures.

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

4.1
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