| Literature DB >> 21707985 |
Kristine Ducena1, Arturs Abols, Janis Vilmanis, Zenons Narbuts, Juris Tārs, Diana Andrējeva, Aija Linē, Valdis Pīrāgs.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Currently the cytological examination of fine needle aspiration (FNA) biopsies is the standard technique for the pre-operative differential diagnosis of thyroid nodules. However, the results may be non-informative in ~20% of cases due to an inadequate sampling and the lack of highly specific, measurable cytological criteria, therefore ancillary biomarkers that could aid in these cases are clearly needed. The aim of our study was to evaluate the mRNA expression levels of 8 candidate marker genes as the diagnostic biomarkers for the discrimination of benign and malignant thyroid nodules and to find a combination of biomarkers with the highest diagnostic value.Entities:
Year: 2011 PMID: 21707985 PMCID: PMC3155827 DOI: 10.1186/1756-6614-4-11
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Thyroid Res ISSN: 1756-6614
Clinical and pathological characteristics of the patient groups
| Characteristics | Thyroid cancer n = 44 | Benign nodule n = 61 |
|---|---|---|
| Male | 9 | 4 |
| Female | 35 | 57 |
| Mean ± SD | 55 ± 17 | 54 ± 15 |
| Median (range) | 55 (24-83) | 57 (25-83) |
| 37 | 49 | |
| Mean ± SD | 2,31 ± 1,41 | 0,87 ± 0,74 |
| Median (range) | 1,32 (1,1-4,34) | 0,75 (0,004-2,43) |
| Hipoechogenic nodule | 9 | 14 |
| No Halozones | 0 | 1 |
| Irregular frontier (non-homogenic) | 6 | 14 |
| Microcalcinates | 4 | 9 |
| Nodules > 3 cm | 5 | 19 |
| Central vascularization | 3 | 3 |
| Retrosternal | 1 | 7 |
| Swollen lymph nodes | 2 | 0 |
| No data | 18 | 8 |
| PTC | 33 | |
| FTC | 3 | |
| MTC | 5 | |
| ATC | 3 | |
| FA | 61 | |
Primers used for qPCR
| Name of the gene | Sequence (5'- > 3') | Size of PCR product (bp) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| LGALS3 F | CTGATTGTGCCTTATAACCTGC | 100 | |
| LGALS3 R | AAGCAATTCTGTTTGCATTGG | ||
| TFF3 F | GTACGTGGGCCTGTCTGC | 121 | |
| TFF3 R | GATCCTGGAGTCAAAGCAGC | ||
| DPP4 F | TGATGCTACAGCTGACAGTCG | 164 | |
| DPP4 R | CTGAGCTGTTTCCATATTCAGC | ||
| CITED1 F | GCTCTGAAATGCCAACAACG | 174 | |
| CITED1 R | TGGTTCCATTTGAGGCTACC | ||
| MET F | TCTGCCTGCAATCTACAAGG | 153 | |
| MET R | AAGGTGCAGCTCTCATTTCC | ||
| CDH1 F | AGAAACAGGATGGCTGAAGG | 199 | |
| CDH1 R | AGCACCTTCCATGACAGACC | ||
| CCND1 F | TGGTGAACAAGCTCAAGTGG | 280 | |
| CCND1 R | ATCACTCTGGAGAGGAAGCG | ||
| BIRC5 F | CAGCCCTTTCTCAAGGACC | 152 | |
| BIRC5 R | AAGCAGAAGAAACACTGGGC | ||
| PGK1 F | CTTAAGGTGCTCAACAACATGG | 119 | |
| PGK1 R | ACAGGCAAGGTAATCTTCACAC | ||
| POLR2A F | GGGTCATCTTCCCAACTGGAG | 164 | |
| POLR2A R | CACCAGCTTCTTGCTCAATTCC | ||
F - forward primer, R- reverse primer
Relative expression values and the diagnostic performance of the marker genes
| Gene, protein name | RQ values - Mean ± SEM | Mann-Whitney U test - p-values | ROC curve - AUC (Asimptotic significance) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Normal | Benign | Malignant | Normal vs Malignant | Benign vs Malignant | Normal vs Malignant | Benign vs Malignant | |
| 0.068 ± 0.013 | 0.035 | 0.248 ± 0.067 | 2.2 × 10-5 | 1 × 10-8 | 0.715 | 0.832 | |
| 0.115 | 0.066 ± 0.007 | 0.037 ± 0.008 | 4.1 × 10-8 | 0.0003 | 0.782 | 0.696 | |
| 0.011 | 0.0146 | 0.066 ± 0.016 | 0.0001 | 0.0004 | 0.693 | 0.695 | |
| 0.048 | 0.033 ± 0.004 | 0.110 ± 0.021 | 0.01 | 0.0005 | 0.610 | 0.689 | |
| 0.010 | 0.021 ± 0.008 | 0.161 ± 0.048 | 0.001 | 0.001 | 0.654 | 0.67 | |
| 0.037 | 0.036 ± 0.007 | 0.084 ± 0.017 | 0.002 | 0.001 | 0.647 | 0.67 | |
| 0.025 | 0.009 ± 0.002 | 0.045 ± 0.018 | 0.0001 | 0.001 | 0.694 | 0.668 | |
| 0.171 | 0.117 ± 0.009 | 0.158 ± 0.018 | 0.2 | 0.06 | 0.464 | 0.525 | |
Figure 1Median mRNA expression levels of the candidate marker genes in groups of 61 benign and 44 malignant thyroid nodules represented by box plots. The relative quantity (RQ) of each marker gene in each sample was calculated using 2-ΔCT method and normalised by using normalisation factor obtained by analysis of the two most stable reference genes (RQ = (2-ΔCT)/NF). Boxes represent the 25th and 75th percentiles; whiskers represent the minimum and maximum values. Statistical significance was calculated using Mann-Whitney U test.
Figure 2The diagnostic performance of the best individual marker, two-marker set and multiplex biomarker model. A and B represents ROC curves of the best individual marker, two-marker set and multiplex model and their LOOCV ROC curves, respectively. C, D, E - Scatter dot plot of LGALS3 RQ, LGALS3 and BIRC5 RQ sum and Multiplex model with the best cut off shows how many benign nodules, malignant nodules and thyroid cancer subtypes are misclassified. In table are the best individual marker, two-marker set and multiplex biomarker model and their LOOCV model ROC curve AUC data and sensitivity and specificity at the best cut-off point.