4.6 Article

Diagnostic utility of LunX mRNA in peripheral blood and pleural fluid in patients with primary non-small cell lung cancer

期刊

BMC CANCER
卷 8, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2407-8-156

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Progress in lung cancer is hampered by the lack of clinically useful diagnostic markers. The goal of this study was to provide a detailed evaluation of lung cancer tumor markers indicative of molecular abnormalities and to assess their diagnostic utility in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. Methods: Quantitative real-time RT-PCR was used to determine LunX, CK19, CEA, VEGF-C and hnRNP A2/B1 mRNA levels in peripheral blood and pleural fluid from NSCLC patients, compared with those from patients with other epithelial cancer (esophagus cancer and breast cancer), benign lung disease (pneumonia and tuberculo pleurisy) and from healthy volunteers. Results: In peripheral blood LunX mRNA was detectable in 75.0% (33/44) of patients with NSCLC, but not in patients with other epithelial cancer (0/28), benign lung disease (0/10) or in healthy volunteers (0/15). In contrast, all other genetic markers were detected in patients with either NSCLC, other epithelia cancer or benign lung disease, and in healthy volunteers. The expression level and positive rate of LunX mRNA in peripheral blood correlated with the pathologic stage of NSCLC (P < 0.001 and P = 0.010 respectively). Furthermore, LunX mRNA was detected in 92.9% (13/14) of malignant pleural fluid samples and was the only marker whose expression level was significantly different between malignant and benign pleural fluid (P < 0.001). Additionally, expression of LunX mRNA in the peripheral blood of NSCLC patients decreased shortly after clinical treatment (P = 0.005). Conclusion: Of several commonly used genetic markers, LunX mRNA is the most specific gene marker for lung cancer and has potential diagnostic utility when measured in the peripheral blood and pleural fluid of NSCLC patients.

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

4.6
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