| Literature DB >> 35520626 |
Rong-Rong Lin1, Xiang-Yu Li2, Qing-Hua Weng3, Xing-Xing Zhou4, Fei-Yun Zheng1, Jian-Ping Cai5.
Abstract
Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare the levels of 8-oxoG and 8-oxodG in urine of patients with cervical carcinoma and healthy women to evaluate their influences on cervical carcinoma.Entities:
Keywords: 8-oxoG; Biomarker; Cervical carcinoma; Oxidative damage; UHPLC- MS/MS; Urine
Year: 2022 PMID: 35520626 PMCID: PMC9061785 DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e09321
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Heliyon ISSN: 2405-8440
Figure 1The concentrations of 8-oxodG and 8-oxoG in the study groups by UHPLC-MS/MS. (A) Comparison of 8-oxoG between control group and cervical carcinoma group. (B) Comparison of 8-oxodG between control group and cervical carcinoma group. (C) ROC curve of 8-oxoG in cervical carcinoma group and control group. (D) ROC curve of 8-oxodG in cervical carcinoma group and control group. (E) Comparison of 8-oxoG between HPV negative group and HPV positive group. (F) Comparison of 8-oxodG between HPV negative group and HPV positive group. (G) Comparison of 8-oxoG between HPV 16/18 group and other high-risk HPV groups. (H) Comparison of 8-oxodG between HPV 16/18 group and other high-risk HPV groups. Data were expressed as mean ± SD. ∗P < 0.05, ∗∗∗P < 0.000 were considered to be statistically significant.
Figure 2Different clinical characteristics of 8-oxoG and 8-oxodG in cervical carcinoma group. (A) Comparison of 8-oxoG between Stage I and Stage II. (B) Comparison of 8-oxoG between small tumor group and large tumor group. (C) 8-oxoG of lymph-vascular space infiltration between negative group and positive group. (D) Expression of 8-oxoG in different histopathological types. (E) Expression of 8-oxoG in different differentiation degrees. (F) Expression of 8-oxoG in different stromal infiltration groups. (G) Comparison of 8-oxodG between Stage I and Stage II. (H) Comparison of 8-oxodG between small tumor group and large tumor group. (I) 8-oxodG of lymph-vascular space infiltration between negative group and positive group. (J) Expression of 8-oxodG in different histopathological types. (K) Expression of 8-oxodG in different differentiation degrees. (L) Expression of 8-oxodG in different stromal infiltration groups. Data were expressed as mean ± SD. ∗P < 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant.
Figure 3Effects of 8-oxoG and 8-oxodG on lymphatic metastasis in cervical carcinoma group. (A) Comparison of 8-oxodG on lymphatic metastasis between negative group and positive group. (B) Comparison of 8-oxoG on lymphatic metastasis between negative group and positive group. (C) ROC curve of 8-oxoG on lymphatic metastasis between negative group and positive group. The cut-off value was 7.282. Data were expressed as mean ± SD. ∗P < 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant.
Figure 4Changes of 8-oxoG and 8-oxodG in cervical carcinoma group according to different postoperative treatment methods. (A) 8-oxoG in 24 patients. (B) 8-oxoG in observation group. (C) 8-oxoG in radiotherapy group. (D) 8-oxoG in chemotherapy group. (E) 8-oxoG in chemo-radiotherapy group. (F) 8-oxodG in 24 patients. (G) 8-oxodG in observation group. (H) 8-oxodG in radiotherapy group. (I) 8-oxodG in chemotherapy group. (J) 8-oxodG in chemo-radiotherapy group. Data were expressed as mean ± SD. ∗P < 0.05, ∗∗∗P < 0.000 were considered to be statistically significant.