4.7 Article

Comparison of the prognostic impact of serum anti-EBV antibody and plasma EBV DNA assays in nasopharyngeal carcinoma

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2006.07.012

关键词

nasopharyngeal carcinoma; Epstein-Barr virus; immunofluorescence; quantitative polymerase chain reaction

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: Nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) has been proven as an Epstein-Barr virus (EBV)-associated cancer. Serum anti-EBV antibodies and plasma EBV DNA have been investigated as surrogate markers for NPC. A comparison of the prognostic impacts of both assays has never been reported. Methods and Materials: Paired serum and plasma samples from 114 previously untreated NPC patients were collected and subjected to an immunofluorescence assay for immunoglobulin (Ig)A and IgG antibodies against the viral capsid antigen (VCA) and a real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction assay for EBV DNA measurement. The effects of both assays on patient prognosis were thoroughly investigated. Results: Relapsed patients had significantly higher pretreatment EBV DNA concentration than patients without relapse (p = 0.0006). No associations of VCA-IgA (p = 0.9669) or VCA-IgG (p = 0.6125) were observed between patients with and without relapse. The 4-year overall survival (60.3 % vs. 93.1 %, p < 0.0001) and relapse-free survival rates (54.4% vs. 77.9%, p = 0.0009) were significantly lower in patients with higher pretreatment EBV DNA load than in those with lower EBV DNA load. Patients with persistently detectable EBV DNA after treatment had significantly worse 4-year overall (30.8 % vs. 84.6 %, p < 0.0001) and relapse-free survival rates (15.4% vs. 74.0%,p < 0.0001) than those with undetectable EBV DNA. The VCA-IgA and VCA-IgG titer could not predict survivals (all p > 0.1). Cox multivariate analyses also showed the same results. Conclusion: Plasma EBV DNA is superior to serum EBV VCA antibodies in prognostic predictions for NPC. (c) 2007 Elsevier Inc.

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