| Literature DB >> 35655724 |
Abstract
Objective: To explore the application value of pelvic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan combined with serum pyruvate kinase isozyme M2 (PKM2), neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin (NGAL), and soluble leptin receptor (sOB-R) detection in diagnosing endometrial carcinoma (EC).Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35655724 PMCID: PMC9148236 DOI: 10.1155/2022/7197505
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Contrast Media Mol Imaging ISSN: 1555-4309 Impact factor: 3.009
Statistics of baseline data of all subjects.
| Item | Number of cases | Proportion (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Mean age ( | 53.59 ± 10.40 | — |
| BMI ( | 20.56 ± 0.84 | — |
| Course of disease (months) | 11.86 ± 6.17 | — |
| Menopause | ||
| Yes | 30 | 66.67 |
| No | 15 | 33.33 |
| FIGO stage (number of cases) | ||
| Stage (0) carcinoma in situ | 8 | 17.78 |
| Stage I | 11 | 24.44 |
| Stage II | 13 | 28.89 |
| Stage III | 7 | 15.56 |
| Stage IV | 6 | 13.33 |
| Degree of tumor differentiation | ||
| Poor | 18 | 40.00 |
| Moderate | 17 | 37.78 |
| Well | 10 | 22.22 |
| Complicated with lymphatic metastasis | ||
| Yes | 36 | 80.00 |
| No | 9 | 20.00 |
| Occupation | ||
| Teacher | 11 | 24.44 |
| Civil servant | 10 | 22.22 |
| Accountant | 13 | 28.89 |
| Self-employed | 8 | 17.78 |
| Others | 3 | 6.67 |
| Family economic status | ||
| ≥3,000 yuan/(month·person) | 30 | 66.67 |
| <3,000yuan/(month·person) | 15 | 33.33 |
| Place of residence | ||
| Urban area | 25 | 55.56 |
| Rural area | 20 | 44.44 |
| Educational degree | ||
| College | 30 | 66.67 |
| Middle school | 10 | 22.22 |
| Primary school | 5 | 11.11 |
| Nationality | ||
| Han | 40 | 88.89 |
| Others | 5 | 11.11 |
Comparison of numbers of true-positive cases, false-positive cases, true-negative cases, and false-negative cases between single detection and combined detection (n (%)).
| Detection modality | True positive (cases) | False positive (cases) | True negative (cases) | False negative (cases) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pelvic MRI scan | 33 (73.33%) | 4 (8.89%) | 5 (11.11%) | 3 (6.67%) |
| Serum PKM2, NGAL, and sOB-R | 27 (60.00%)# | 6 (13.33%) | 5 (11.11%) | 7 (15.56%)## |
| Combined detection | 41 (91.11%) | 1 (2.22%) | 2 (4.44%) | 1 (2.22%) |
Obvious difference in numbers of true-positive cases between pelvic MRI scan and combined detection (x2 = 4.865, P < 0.05); #Obvious difference in numbers of true-positive cases between serum PKM2, NGAL, and sOB-R detection and combined detection (x2 = 11.791, P < 0.05); and ##Obvious difference in numbers of false-positive cases between serum PKM2, NGAL, and sOB-R detection and combined detection (x2 = 4.939, P < 0.05).
Comparison of sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy rate between single detection and combined detection (n (%)).
| Detection modality | Sensitivity (%) | Specificity (%) | Accuracy rate (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pelvic MRI scan | 91.67 | 55.56 | 33 (73.33%) |
| Serum PKM2, NGAL, and sOB-R detection | 79.41 | 45.45 | 27 (60.00%) |
| Combined detection | 97.62 | 66.67 | 41 (91.11%) |
Figure 1Area under ROC curve of single detection and combined detection.
Comparison of areas, S.E.a, Asymp. Sig.b, and Asymp. 95% CI of various indicators.
| Asymp. 95% CI | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Test result variables | Area | S.E.a | Asymp. Sig.b | Lower limit | Upper limit |
| Pelvic MRI scan | 0.753 | 0.075 | 0.004 | 0.605 | 0.901 |
| Serum PKM2, NGAL, and sOB-R | 0.619 | 0.085 | 0.172 | 0.453 | 0.785 |
| Joint detection | 0.887 | 0.056 | <0.001 | 0.778 | 0.996 |
Comparison of sensitivity and 1-specificity.
| Test result variables | Positivea if greater than or equal to | Sensitivity | 1-specificity |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pelvic MRI scan | −1.0000 | 1.000 | 1.000 |
| 0.5000 | 0.714 | 0.208 | |
| 2.0000 | <0.001 | <0.001 | |
|
| |||
| Serum PKM2, NGAL, and sOB-R detection | −1.0000 | 1.000 | 1.000 |
| 0.5000 | 0.571 | 0.333 | |
| 2.0000 | <0.001 | <0.001 | |
|
| |||
| Joint detection | −1.0000 | 1.000 | 1.000 |
| 0.5000 | 0.857 | 0.083 | |
| 2.0000 | <0.001 | <0.001 | |