| Literature DB >> 34537058 |
Wenwen Han1, Xiangzhen Bu2, Yanli Liu3, Fang Liu4, Yujie Ren1, Yongsheng Cui5, Shuhong Kong6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To study the clinical value of miR-135 and miR-20a combined with multi-detector computed tomography (MDCT) in the diagnosis of gastric cancer (GC).Entities:
Keywords: Combined diagnosis; Gastric cancer; Multi-detector computed tomography; miR-135; miR-20a
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34537058 PMCID: PMC8449899 DOI: 10.1186/s12957-021-02395-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: World J Surg Oncol ISSN: 1477-7819 Impact factor: 2.754
List of primers for detection of serum miR-135 and miR-20a
| Factors | Upstream primer | Downstream primer |
|---|---|---|
| miR-135 | 5′-ATGTACGCTACTGTGAGCTG-3′ | 5′-GTCAGCGAGTGAGCATAG-3′ |
| miR-20a | 5′- GCGGCGGTAAAGTGCTTATAGTG-3′ | 5′-TGCAGGGTCCGAGGTAT-3′ |
| U6 | 5′-CCCTCCAGAGAGCGTTAT- GTGA-3′ | 5′-GTTTCTGAAAATTA-CAGGGTCATTTGTG-3′ |
Fig. 1Comparison of serum miR-135 levels in each group
Fig. 2Comparison of serum miR-20a levels in each group
Relationship between serum miR-135 and miR-20a expression and clinical characteristics in patients with gastric cancer [(‾χ ± s), U/mL]
| Clinical characteristic | Cases ( | miR-135 expression | miR-20a expression | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | > 0.05 | > 0.05 | |||
| M | 97 | 7.56 ± 0.57 | 6.56 ± 0.85 | ||
| F | 49 | 7.43 ± 0.54 | 6.48 ± 0.83 | ||
| Age (years) | > 0.05 | > 0.05 | |||
| < 60 | 88 | 7.98 ± 0.67 | 6.64 ± 0.76 | ||
| ≥ 60 | 58 | 8.16 ± 0.69 | 6.72 ± 0.81 | ||
| Degree of gastric cancer progression | < 0.01 | < 0.01 | |||
| Early stage | 54 | 7.96 ± 0.32 | 5.08 ± 0.46 | ||
| Progressive phase | 92 | 9.11 ± 0.34 | 7.23 ± 0.41 | ||
| TNM stage | < 0.01 | < 0.01 | |||
| I-II | 76 | 7.24 ± 0.26 | 4.93 ± 0.37 | ||
| III-IV | 70 | 9.36 ± 0.28 | 7.51 ± 0.42 | ||
| Degrees of differentiation | < 0.01 | < 0.01 | |||
| Well differentiated | 94 | 7.78 ± 0.34 | 5.56 ± 0.42 | ||
| Poorly differentiated | 52 | 9.36 ± 0.41 | 7.38 ± 0.47 | ||
| Lymph node metastasis | < 0.01 | < 0.01 | |||
| No | 65 | 7.43 ± 0.27 | 5.13 ± 0.49 | ||
| Yes | 81 | 9.27 ± 0.32 | 7.44 ± 0.46 | ||
| Distant metastasis | < 0.01 | < 0.01 | |||
| Yes | 53 | 7.51 ± 0.45 | 5.34 ± 0.66 | ||
| No | 93 | 9.43 ± 0.53 | 7.63 ± 0.72 |
Fig. 3Correlation analysis of serum miR-135 and miR-20a in patients with gastric cancer
Fig. 4MDCT image
Fig. 5ROC of miR-135 and miR-20a in the diagnosis of gastric cancer
Comparison of pathological results of miR-135 and miR-20a in the diagnosis of gastric cancer (n)
| Items | Pathological results ( | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Positive | Negative | ||
| miR-135 | |||
| Positive | 114 | 21 | 135 |
| Negative | 32 | 82 | 114 |
| miR-20a | |||
| Positive | 116 | 29 | 145 |
| Negative | 30 | 74 | 104 |
| MDCT | |||
| Positive | 102 | 11 | 113 |
| Negative | 44 | 92 | 136 |
| Total | 146 | 103 | 249 |
Diagnostic value of miR-135 and miR-20a for gastric cancer
| Detection indicator | Sensitivity | Specificity | Accuracy | Positive predictive rate | Negative predictive rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| miR-135 | 78.08% (114/146) | 79.61% (82/103) | 78.71% (196/249) | 84.44% (114/135) | 71.93% (82/114) |
| miR-20a | 79.45% (116/146) | 71.84% (74/103) | 76.31% (190/249) | 80.00% (116/145) | 71.15% (74/104) |
| MDCT | 69.86% (102/146) | 89.32% (92/103) | 77.91% (194/249) | 90.27% (102/113) | 67.65% (92/136) |
| Combined detection | 90.41% (132/146) | 93.20% (96/103) | 94.57% (228/249) | 94.96% (132/139) | 87.27% (96/110) |
| < 0.01 | > 0.05 | < 0.01 | > 0.05 | < 0.01 |