| Literature DB >> 31788058 |
Likui Yin1, Guangxiao Xu2, Yuntao Zhu3, Yongqiang Wang4.
Abstract
Correlation between the expression of miR-23a and miR-135 and tumor markers in gastric cancer patients and their significance in diagnosis was investigated. A total of 78 patients with gastric cancer admitted to Dongying People's Hospital from July 2015 to June 2017 were enrolled, and 80 healthy patients were selected as the control group during the same period. The expression levels of miR-23a and miR-135 in the serum of the two groups were detected by RT-qPCR, and the expression levels of tumor markers CEA and carbohydrate antigen 199 (CA199) were detected by ELISA. The receiver operating characteristic curve and area under the curve (AUC) were used to evaluate the diagnostic efficacy of miR-23a and miR-135 as diagnostic indicators. There was no significant difference between the observation and the control group (P>0.05). The expression levels of miR-23a and miR-135 in the observation group were significantly higher than those in the control group (P<0.05). The expression levels of CEA and CA199 in serum of patients in the observation group were significantly higher than those in the control group (P<0.05). Pearson's correlation test showed that the expression levels of miR-23a and miR-135 were positively correlated with CEA and CA199 (P<0.05). The specificity, sensitivity and AUC of miR-23a in the diagnosis of gastric cancer were 67.95, 87.50 and 0.805%, respectively. The specificity, sensitivity and AUC of miR-135 in the diagnosis of gastric cancer were 73.08, 82.50 and 0.824%, respectively. Both could be used in the diagnosis of gastric cancer. In conclusion, miR-23a and miR-135 are highly expressed in gastric cancer patients and positively correlated with tumor markers, which can be used in diagnosis for gastric cancer. Copyright: © Yin et al.Entities:
Keywords: correlation; diagnosis; gastric cancer; miR-135; miR-23a; tumor marker
Year: 2019 PMID: 31788058 PMCID: PMC6865083 DOI: 10.3892/ol.2019.10943
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Oncol Lett ISSN: 1792-1074 Impact factor: 2.967
miR-23a, miR-135 and U6 primer sequences.
| Gene | Forward primer | Reverse primer |
|---|---|---|
| 5′-GGGGATCACATTGCCAGG-3′ | 5′-AGTGCGTGTCGTGGAGTC-3′ | |
| 5′-ACAUAGGAAUAAAAAGCCAUAtt-3′ | 5′-CUAUGGCUUUUUAUUCCUAUGUGA-3′ | |
| 5′-CTCGCTTCGGCAGCACA-3′ | 5′-AACGCTTCACGAATTTGCGT-3′ |
Comparison of general clinical data between the two groups (mean ± SD) [n (%)].
| Clinical factors | Control group (n=80) | Observation group (n=78) | t/χ2 value | P-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BMI (kg/m2) | 23.98±1.26 | 24.36±1.57 | 1.68 | 0.095 |
| Heart rate (times/points) | 105.61±11.53 | 105.79±11.66 | 0.098 | 0.922 |
| Urea nitrogen (mmol/l) | 12.97±3.51 | 13.16±3.71 | 0.331 | 0.741 |
| Age | 49.67±5.68 | 50.45±4.71 | 0.938 | 0.35 |
| Tumor staging | 0.239 | 0.625 | ||
| I+II | 39 (48.75) | 35 (44.87) | ||
| IIIa+IIIb | 41 (51.25) | 43 (55.13) | ||
| Borrmann classification | 0.534 | 0.465 | ||
| I+II | 37 (46.25) | 32 (41.03) | ||
| III+IV | 43 (53.75) | 46 (58.97) | ||
| Sex | 0.143 | 0.378 | ||
| Male | 45 (56.25) | 42 (53.85) | ||
| Female | 35 (43.75) | 36 (46.15) | ||
| Drinking history | 0.38 | 0.617 | ||
| Yes | 51 (63.75) | 47 (60.26) | ||
| No | 29 (36.25) | 31 (39.74) | ||
| Degree of differentiation | 0.355 | 0.837 | ||
| Differentiated type | 21 (26.25) | 21 (26.92) | ||
| Poorly differentiated | 32 (40) | 34 (43.59) | ||
| Undifferentiated type | 27 (33 75) | 23 (29.49) | ||
| Lymph node metastasis | 0.894 | 0.345 | ||
| Yes | 46 (57.5) | 39 (50) | ||
| No | 34 (42.5) | 39 (50) | ||
| Degree of differentiation | 0.261 | 0.61 | ||
| High school and below | 11 (13.75) | 13 (16.67) | ||
| Over Senior High School | 69 (86.25) | 65 (83.33) | ||
| History of smoking | 0.23 | 0.632 | ||
| No | 41 (51.25) | 37 (47.44) | ||
| Yes | 39 (48.75) | 41 (52.56) |
Comparison of serum miR-23a and miR-135 expression between the two groups (mean ± SD).
| Group | n | miR-23a | miR-135 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Observation | 78 | 13.72±3.27 | 4.50±1.41 |
| Control | 80 | 10.15±2.26 | 3.03±0.74 |
| t value | – | 8.000 | 8.234 |
| P-value | – | <0.001 | <0.001 |
Comparison of serum CA199 and CEA expression between the two groups (mean ± SD).
| Group | n | CA199 (ng/ml) | CEA (ng/ml) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Observation | 78 | 53.07±38.27 | 16.58±11.18 |
| Control | 80 | 11.34±3.5 | 1.8±1.40 |
| t value | – | 0.877 | 11.730 |
| P-value | – | <0.001 | <0.001 |
CA199, carbohydrate antigen 199.
Diagnostic value of serum miR-23a and miR-135 in gastric cancer.
| Indicators | AUC | 95% CI | Specificity (%) | Sensitivity (%) | Cut-off |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| miR-23a | 0.805 | 0.735–0.874 | 67.95 | 87.50 | 12.500 |
| miR-135 | 0.824 | 0.758–0.890 | 73.08 | 82.50 | 3.677 |
AUC, area under the curve.
Figure 1.ROC curve of serum miR-23a and miR-135 in the diagnosis of gastric cancer. The AUC for the diagnosis of gastric cancer by miR-23a was 0.805, the specificity was 67.95%, and the sensitivity was 87.50%. The AUC of gastric cancer diagnosed by miR-135 was 0.824, the specificity was 73.08%, and the sensitivity was 82.50%. AUC, area under the curve.
Figure 2.Correlation analysis between miR-23a, miR-135, CA199 and CEA. Correlation between the expression of serum (A) miR-23a and CA199, (B) miR-23a and CEA, (C) miR-135 and CA199, and (D) miR-135 and CEA in gastric cancer patients. CA199, carbohydrate antigen 199.