| Literature DB >> 31186786 |
Qingxu Liu1, Yan Gao2, Yongxue Wang3, Jiexin Du4, Qiang Yin5, Kewei Shi1.
Abstract
Diagnostic value of hepatic artery perfusion fraction (HAF) combined with transforming growth factor-β (TGF-β) in the diagnosis of primary liver carcinoma (PLC) was evaluated. The clinical data of 128 PLC patients undergoing radical hepatectomy in Affiliated Hospital of Jining Medical University were regarded as the study group. Seventy-four healthy volunteers examined in Affiliated Hospital of Jining Medical University were collected as the control group. Double-antibody sandwich enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay was used to detect the expression level of serum TGF-β. The upper abdomen of the subjects was scanned by a 64-slice spiral CT, and the perfusion parameters were analyzed and calculated. According to the HAF and the expression level of TGF-β in the two groups, single and combined detection of TGF-β and HAF parameters were detected, respectively, by ROC curve. The expression of TGF-β in serum of the study group was higher than that of the control group (P<0.05). The expression level of serum TGF-β was closely related to total bilirubin, ascites, TNM stage, prothrombin time and tumor diameter. Blood flow (BF), blood volume (BV), permeability surface (PS), HAF and other perfusion parameters in the study group were higher than those in the control group (P<0.05). The specificity and sensitivity of TGF-β expression level in diagnosing PLC were 73 and 93%, respectively; the specificity and sensitivity of HAF parameter in diagnosing PLC were 73 and 100%, respectively; the specificity and sensitivity of HAF parameter combined with TGF-β expression level were 84 and 100%, respectively. TGF-β is highly expressed in serum of PLC patients; HAF parameter combined with TGF-β expression level can improve the specificity and has an important value in the diagnosis of PLC, which is worthy of clinical promotion.Entities:
Keywords: CT perfusion imaging; TGF-β; diagnostic value; hepatic artery perfusion fraction; primary liver carcinoma
Year: 2019 PMID: 31186786 PMCID: PMC6507442 DOI: 10.3892/ol.2019.10228
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Oncol Lett ISSN: 1792-1074 Impact factor: 2.967
Comparison of general baseline information between the two groups [n (%)] (mean ± SD).
| Classification | Study group (n=128) | Control group (n=74) | χ2/t value | P-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age | 50.49±16.90 | 51.83±15.48 | 0.560 | 0.576 |
| Sex | 0.101 | 0.767 | ||
| Male | 79 (61.72) | 44 (59.46) | ||
| Female | 49 (38.28) | 30 (40.54) | ||
| BMI (kg/m2) | 0.320 | 0.629 | ||
| <24 | 93 (72.66) | 51 (68.92) | ||
| ≥24 | 35 (27.34) | 23 (31.08) | ||
| Heart rate (time/min) | 1.588 | 0.262 | ||
| <60 | 18 (14.06) | 11 (14.86) | ||
| ≥60 | 110 (85.94) | 63 (85.14) | ||
| Renal function | 0.283 | 0.603 | ||
| Normal | 101 (78.91) | 56 (75.68) | ||
| Abnormal | 27 (21.09) | 18 (24.32) | ||
| Serum creatinine (µmol/l) | 0.098 | 0.833 | ||
| <133 | 17 (13.28) | 9 (12.16) | ||
| ≥133 | 111 (86.72) | 65 (87.84) | ||
| Smoking | 0.199 | 0.763 | ||
| <Yes | 79 (61.72) | 48 (64.86) | ||
| ≥No | 49 (38.28) | 26 (35.14) | ||
| Fasting blood sugar (mmol/l) | 4.71±0.68 | 4.64±0.78 | 0.668 | 0.505 |
| Hb (g/l) | 127.18±16.93 | 126.17±15.99 | 0.417 | 0.677 |
| RBC (×1012/l) | 4.63±0.31 | 4.59±0.42 | 0.774 | 0.440 |
| PLT (×109/l) | 213.85±54.86 | 218.09±51.85 | 0.540 | 0.580 |
Figure 1.Comparison of serum TGF-β expression between the study group and the control group. Results of ELISA detection found that the expression of TGF-β in serum of the study group was higher than that of the control group, the difference was statistically significant (t=9.924, P<0.01). *Compared with the control group, the difference was statistically significant.
Comparison of serum TGF-β expression with clinicopathology in the study group (mean ± SD).
| Classification | Study group (n=128) | TGF-β (ng/l) | t value | P-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total bilirubin (µmol/l) | 3.568 | <0.01 | ||
| <33 | 42 | 219.44±58.81 | ||
| ≥33 | 86 | 257.25±55.04 | ||
| Ascites | 7.922 | <0.01 | ||
| Yes | 63 | 279.43±32.86 | ||
| No | 65 | 215.69±55.06 | ||
| Prothrombin time (sec) | 7.360 | <0.01 | ||
| <14 | 16 | 195.03±34.40 | ||
| ≥14 | 112 | 272.36±39.93 | ||
| Tumor diameter | 6.612 | <0.01 | ||
| <5 cm | 47 | 216.35±55.72 | ||
| ≥5 cm | 81 | 272.45±39.84 | ||
| TNM stage | 8.920 | <0.01 | ||
| I–II | 59 | 202.59±41.96 | ||
| III–IV | 69 | 269.59±42.70 | ||
| Lymph node metastasis | 4.911 | <0.01 | ||
| Yes | 35 | 281.58±30.71 | ||
| No | 93 | 225.45±64.82 | ||
| Distant metastasis | 5.866 | <0.01 | ||
| Yes | 38 | 282.32±29.97 | ||
| No | 90 | 221.45±60.82 |
Figure 2.Comparison of CT perfusion parameters between the study group and the control group. The results of 64-slice spiral CT showed that, the BF parameter in the study group was higher than that in the control group, with statistical difference (t=15.620, P<0.01); the BV parameter in the study group was higher than that in the control group, with statistical difference (t=9.514, P<0.01); there was no statistical difference in the MTT parameter between the study group and the control group (t=1.933, P=0.055); the PS parameter in the study group was higher than that in the control group, with statistical difference (t=6.302, P<0.01); the HAF parameter in the study group was higher than that in the control group, with statistical difference (t=30.77, P<0.01). *Compared with the control group, the difference was statistically significant.
Figure 3.Diagnostic value of HAF parameter and TGF-β expression in PLC