4.6 Article

Angiogenin outperforms VEGF, EPCs and CECs in predicting Dukes' and AJCC stage in colorectal cancer

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL INVESTIGATION
卷 43, 期 8, 页码 801-808

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/eci.12108

关键词

angiogenin; circulating endothelial cells; colorectal cancer; endothelial progenitor cells; von Willebrand factor

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Circulating endothelial cells (CECs), endothelial progenitor cells (EPCs), Willebrand factor (vWf), soluble E-selectin, vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and angiogenin are of interest in cancer vascular biology. However, few studies have looked at more than one in combination. We set out to determine which would be best in predicting the Dukes' and American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) scores in colorectal cancer patients. Methods We recruited 154 patients with colorectal cancer, 29 healthy controls and 26 patients with benign bowel disease. CD34(+)/CD45(-)/CD146(+) CECs and CD34(+)/CD45(-)/CD309[KDR](+) EPCs were measured by flow cytometry, plasma markers by ELISA. Results All research indices were raised in colorectal cancer (P<0.05) compared to control groups. Although CECs (P<0.05), EPCs (P<0.01) and angiogenin (P<0.01) increased stepwise across the four Dukes' stages and four AJCC stages, only angiogenin remained significant in multiple regression analysis (P=0.003 for Dukes, P=0.01 for AJCC). Angiogenin levels were higher in Dukes' stages C and D compared to stage A, and AJCC stages 4-6 and 7-10 compared to stage 1 (all P<0.05). Adding a second research marker to angiogenin did not markedly improve this relationship. Conclusion Although we found disturbances in endotheliod cells and plasma markers of the endothelium and growth factors, only angiogenin levels were independently associated with progression of the Dukes' stage and AJCC stage, with the association with Duke's stage being stronger. We suggest that angiogenin is a potential biomarker in risk stratification for colorectal cancer, and may aid clinical decision making.

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