| Literature DB >> 34422249 |
Bin Wang1, Shengliang Wang1, Shaolei Lang1, Li Liang1, Yang Yang1, Yan Xue1, Yinxia Xu1.
Abstract
The incidence rate of thyroid disease is increasing rapidly worldwide, and the number of thyroid patients is increasing. In this study, serum TAP (tumor abnormal protein) and CEA (carcinoembryonic antigen) were used to detect patients with thyroid nodules of class IV and above to explore the value of serum TAP combined detection of CEA in the risk assessment of thyroid cancer. In this paper, 400 patients with thyroid nodules above class IV diagnosed by physical examination in our hospital health management center from January 2019 to June 2021 were included in the study. Combined with the pathological test results, the patients were divided into risk groups. At the same time, different groups of serum TAP and CEA levels were detected by aggregation and electrochemiluminescence methods, and serum TAP and CEA levels were analyzed according to the pathological diagnostic indicators of CEA levels. The results showed that the levels of serum TAP and CEA in patients with thyroid cancer were significantly higher than those in patients with benign thyroid diseases, and the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05). The sensitivity, specificity, and AUC under the ROC curve area of serum TAP were 85.25%, 85.06%, and 0.605, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, and AUC under the ROC curve area of serum CEA were 89.85%, 88.00%, and 0.627, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, and AUC under the ROC curve area of serum TAP combined with CEA were 96.84%, 96.79%, and 0.915, respectively. Therefore, the combined detection of serum TAP and CEA has a high early screening value in thyroid cancer.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34422249 PMCID: PMC8373514 DOI: 10.1155/2021/8836288
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Healthc Eng ISSN: 2040-2295 Impact factor: 2.682
Thyroid cancer patient group information.
| Group | Male | Female | Sample size of the positive group | Age | Average age |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Normal group | 41 | 59 | 100 | 29–79 | 58.0 ± 23.2 |
| CEA positive group | 37 | 63 | 100 | 28–79 | 53.0 ± 20.3 |
| TAP positive group | 49 | 51 | 100 | 38–69 | 53.5 ± 12.4 |
| CEA + TAP positive | 46 | 54 | 100 | 38–76 | 57.3 ± 14.9 |
Clinical data of each group of subjects (x ± s).
| Index | Normal group ( | CEA positive group ( | TAP positive group ( | TAP + CEA positive group ( | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Male | 41 | 37 | 51 | 54 | 0.36 |
| Female | 59 | 63 | 49 | 46 | ||
| Average age (years) | 58.0 ± 23.2 | 53.0 ± 20.3 | 53.5 ± 12.4 | 57.3 ± 14.9 | 0.19 | |
| Pathological results | Benign | 100 | 66 | 46 | 15 | 0.23 |
| Malignant | 0 | 34 | 54 | 85 | 1.00 | |
Figure 1Seropositive expression rate in patients with thyroid cancer.
Figure 2Index of positive aggregate area.
Figure 3Thyroid cancer model image.
Serum TAP level and positive rate of each group (%, x ± s).
| Group | Number of cases | Agglomerate area (mm2) | TAP expression | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Positive (+) | Negative (−) | |||
| Normal group | 100 | 89.02 ± 6.79 | 0 | 100 |
| CEA positive group | 100 | 103.03 ± 9.87a | 46 | 54 |
| TAP positive group | 100 | 138.56 ± 12.25ab | 100 | 0 |
| TAP + CEA positive | 100 | 210.01 ± 15.81abc | 100 | 0 |
| 68.591 | ||||
| 0.001 | ||||
Compared with the normal group, aP < 0.05; compared with the CEA positive group, bP < 0.05; compared with the TAP positive group, cP < 0.05.
Serum CEA level and positive rate (%, X ± s).
| Group | Number of cases | Numerical value (ng/ml) | CEA expression | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Positive (+) | Negative (−) | |||
| Normal group | 100 | 1.00 ± 0.23 | 0 | 100 |
| CEA positive group | 100 | 2.54 ± 0.31a | 66 | 34 |
| TAP positive group | 100 | 5.38 ± 0.51ab | 0 | 100 |
| TAP + CEA positive | 100 | 15.69 ± 4.01abc | 100 | 0 |
| 55.261 | ||||
| 0.001 | ||||
Compared with the normal group, aP < 0.05; compared with the CEA positive group, bP < 0.05; compared with the TAP positive group, cP < 0.05.
Figure 4Intuitive diagram of test items.
Figure 5Thyroid cancer pathology.
Detection of TTF-1, PTEN, and NIS expression in each group ().
| Group | Normal | CEA positive | TAP positive | CEA + TAP positive |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TTF-1 | 0.59 ± 0.03 | 1.04 ± 0.02a | 1.32 ± 0.09ab | 1.98 ± 0.13abc | 57.231 | 0.001 |
| PTEN | 1.70 ± 0.09 | 0.89 ± 0.06a | 0.56 ± 0.03ab | 0.30 ± 0.02abc | 76.852 | 0.001 |
| NIS | 0.40 ± 0.06 | 0.79 ± 0.59a | 1.45 ± 0.15ab | 2.10 ± 0.19abc | 76.321 | 0.001 |
Figure 6Comparison of diagnostic sensitivity and specific ROC.
Figure 7Diagnostic indexes of serum TAP and CEA in the diagnosis of the benign and malignant thyroid.
Figure 8Detected type IV and V thyroid nodules.
Comparison of detection rates of thyroid nodules by different detection methods (n, (%)).
| Detection means | Class IV | Class V |
|---|---|---|
| TAP testing | 363 (79.20) | 50 (9.00) |
| CEA testing | 346 (86.25) | 60 (15.75) |
| TAP + CEA testing | 390 (98.75)ab | 10 (2.45)ab |
|
| 36.161 | 40.658 |
|
| 0.001 | 0.001 |
Figure 9Missed diagnosis rate and misdiagnosis rate of the serum test.
Comparison of the missed diagnosis and misdiagnosis rate of three detection methods.
| Detection means | TAP test | CEA test | TAP + CEA test |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Missed diagnosis | 46 (11.35) | 48 (11.65) | 9 (1.05)ab | 37.321 | 0.001 |
| Misdiagnosis | 24 (5.65) | 26 (7.35) | 1.03 (0.26)ab | 39.453 | 0.001 |
Compared with TAP, aP < 0.05; compared with CEA detection, bP < 0.05.
Figure 10Comparison of sensitivity and specificity indicators.
Comparison of sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of three detection methods.
| Detection means | TAP test | CEA test | TAP + CEA test |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sensitivity | 86.231 | 90.767 | 97.783ab | 57.321 | 0.001 |
| Specificity | 86.026 | 89.217 | 97.775ab | 35.689 | 0.001 |
| Accuracy | 87.359 | 88.884 | 98.689ab | 47.689 | 0.001 |
Compared with TAP, aP < 0.05; compared with CEA detection, bP < 0.05.