Rkers in Etrasimod web Combination as a predictors of pre-treated PC compared to controls. P-values #0.05 were 23388095 considered statistically significant.Results Elevated Levels of NGAL, MIC-1, and CA19-9 in Pancreatic Cancer PatientsPlasma samples from a total of 138 subjects were analyzed comprised of 91 PC (66 ), 23 CP (17 ) and 24 healthy control (HC, 17 ) subjects. PC and CP patients were significantly older than HCs (p = 0.0005) and had a higher percentage of males (60 and 61 vs. 18 , p = 0.001). A majority of study subjects were Caucasians (92 , 91 and 91 of PC, CP and HC respectively). Sixty-two percent of PC and 25 1531364 of HC patients were ever smokers. Nearly half of PC patients had resectable tumors (51 ). A majority of the tumors (71 ) were located in the pancreatic head and were moderate to poorly differentiated (89 ). Ten percent of PC patients had a family history of PC while 27 had a history of type 2 diabetes (Table 1). Assessment of the correlation of serum bilirubin with CA19.9 level in both CP and PC cases revealed no correlation between CA19.9 and bilirubinDiagnostic Accuracy of a Combination of Two or Three Markers for PC Compared to CA19-9 AloneCA19-9 is currently the only FDA approved biomarker that is used to aid in the diagnosis and to follow the progress of PC patients. Having examined the diagnostic performance of individual markers, we next sought to investigate whether adding either NGAL or MIC-1 to CA19-9 (the gold standard) improved the ability to distinguish PC cases (resectable or unresectable) fromDiagnosis Efficacy of NGAL, MIC-1 and CA19-Table 4. Determining optimum cut-off of CA19-9, NGAL and MIC-1 for diagnosis of pancreatic cancer?.Groups PC vs. HC CA19-9 ln (CA19-9) ln (MIC-1) ln (NGAL) PC vs. CP CA19-9 ln (CA19-9) ln (MIC-1) ln (NGAL) Stage 1/2 PC vs. HC CA19-9 ln (CA19-9) ln (MIC-1) ln (NGAL) Stage 3/4 PC vs. HC CA19-9 ln (CA19-9) ln (MIC-1) ln (NGAL) Stage 1/2 PC vs. CP CA19-9 ln (CA19-9) ln (MIC-1) ln (NGAL) Stage 3/4 PC vs. CP CA19-9 ln (CA19-9) ln (MIC-1) ln (NGAL)Optimum cut-offSensitivitySpecificityOR from cutpoint 95 CIp-value37 U/ml .55 U/ml .2.3 ng/ml .83 ng/ml83 79 62 6767 92 63 578.4 40.7 2.7 2.2.8?5.8 8.2?03 0.97?.4 0.97?.0.0002 ,0.0001 0.056 0.37 U/ml .62.2 U/ml .2.3 ng/ml .157.6 ng/ml83 79 62 3461 78 78 656.6 13.3 5.8 0.2.2?9.9 4.0?4.8 1.8?8.4 0.3?.0.0009 ,0.0001 0.0028 0.37 U/ml .54.1 U/ml .2.2 ng/ml .91.8 ng/ml71 74 81 6467 92 64 887.3 31 6 12.2.4?2.6 6.2?53.9 1.9?8.2 3.2?9.0.0005 ,0.0001 0.0018 0.37 U/ml .54.1 U/ml .1.6 ng/ml .86.5 ng/ml88 83 78 5867 92 58 7918 51.9 4.8 5.4.7?8.5 9.8?73 1.6?4.5 1.6?6.,0.0001 ,0.0001 0.005 0.37 U/ml .49.4 U/ml .2.3 ng/ml .70.8 ng/ml71 76 76 7661 74 78 305.7 9.1 11.5 1.1.9?7.4 2.8?9.2 3.4?9 0.4?.0.0022 0.0002 ,0.0001 0.37 U/ml .186 U/ml .3.5 ng/ml .-28.5 ng/ml88 70 55 561 96 91 10014 51.3 12.8 ND3.7?2.9 6.2?25 2.6?2.2 ND0.0001 0.0003 0.0015 ND?HC: Healthy Controls; CP: Chronic Pancreatitis; PC: Pancreatic Cancer; ln: natural log; ND: Not Determined.?PC patient samples were limited to treatment naive samples only for this analysis. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0055171.tCP or HCs. The combination tests were determined via multivariate analyses of individual markers, and those MedChemExpress Roxadustat showing statistically significant differences between respective patient groups being used further for analysis. Addition of NGAL and MIC-1 improved the area under the curve (AUC6SE) from 0.8 (0.06) to 0.85 (0.05) in distinguishing stage1/2 PC from HCs (Table 5).Rkers in combination as a predictors of pre-treated PC compared to controls. P-values #0.05 were 23388095 considered statistically significant.Results Elevated Levels of NGAL, MIC-1, and CA19-9 in Pancreatic Cancer PatientsPlasma samples from a total of 138 subjects were analyzed comprised of 91 PC (66 ), 23 CP (17 ) and 24 healthy control (HC, 17 ) subjects. PC and CP patients were significantly older than HCs (p = 0.0005) and had a higher percentage of males (60 and 61 vs. 18 , p = 0.001). A majority of study subjects were Caucasians (92 , 91 and 91 of PC, CP and HC respectively). Sixty-two percent of PC and 25 1531364 of HC patients were ever smokers. Nearly half of PC patients had resectable tumors (51 ). A majority of the tumors (71 ) were located in the pancreatic head and were moderate to poorly differentiated (89 ). Ten percent of PC patients had a family history of PC while 27 had a history of type 2 diabetes (Table 1). Assessment of the correlation of serum bilirubin with CA19.9 level in both CP and PC cases revealed no correlation between CA19.9 and bilirubinDiagnostic Accuracy of a Combination of Two or Three Markers for PC Compared to CA19-9 AloneCA19-9 is currently the only FDA approved biomarker that is used to aid in the diagnosis and to follow the progress of PC patients. Having examined the diagnostic performance of individual markers, we next sought to investigate whether adding either NGAL or MIC-1 to CA19-9 (the gold standard) improved the ability to distinguish PC cases (resectable or unresectable) fromDiagnosis Efficacy of NGAL, MIC-1 and CA19-Table 4. Determining optimum cut-off of CA19-9, NGAL and MIC-1 for diagnosis of pancreatic cancer?.Groups PC vs. HC CA19-9 ln (CA19-9) ln (MIC-1) ln (NGAL) PC vs. CP CA19-9 ln (CA19-9) ln (MIC-1) ln (NGAL) Stage 1/2 PC vs. HC CA19-9 ln (CA19-9) ln (MIC-1) ln (NGAL) Stage 3/4 PC vs. HC CA19-9 ln (CA19-9) ln (MIC-1) ln (NGAL) Stage 1/2 PC vs. CP CA19-9 ln (CA19-9) ln (MIC-1) ln (NGAL) Stage 3/4 PC vs. CP CA19-9 ln (CA19-9) ln (MIC-1) ln (NGAL)Optimum cut-offSensitivitySpecificityOR from cutpoint 95 CIp-value37 U/ml .55 U/ml .2.3 ng/ml .83 ng/ml83 79 62 6767 92 63 578.4 40.7 2.7 2.2.8?5.8 8.2?03 0.97?.4 0.97?.0.0002 ,0.0001 0.056 0.37 U/ml .62.2 U/ml .2.3 ng/ml .157.6 ng/ml83 79 62 3461 78 78 656.6 13.3 5.8 0.2.2?9.9 4.0?4.8 1.8?8.4 0.3?.0.0009 ,0.0001 0.0028 0.37 U/ml .54.1 U/ml .2.2 ng/ml .91.8 ng/ml71 74 81 6467 92 64 887.3 31 6 12.2.4?2.6 6.2?53.9 1.9?8.2 3.2?9.0.0005 ,0.0001 0.0018 0.37 U/ml .54.1 U/ml .1.6 ng/ml .86.5 ng/ml88 83 78 5867 92 58 7918 51.9 4.8 5.4.7?8.5 9.8?73 1.6?4.5 1.6?6.,0.0001 ,0.0001 0.005 0.37 U/ml .49.4 U/ml .2.3 ng/ml .70.8 ng/ml71 76 76 7661 74 78 305.7 9.1 11.5 1.1.9?7.4 2.8?9.2 3.4?9 0.4?.0.0022 0.0002 ,0.0001 0.37 U/ml .186 U/ml .3.5 ng/ml .-28.5 ng/ml88 70 55 561 96 91 10014 51.3 12.8 ND3.7?2.9 6.2?25 2.6?2.2 ND0.0001 0.0003 0.0015 ND?HC: Healthy Controls; CP: Chronic Pancreatitis; PC: Pancreatic Cancer; ln: natural log; ND: Not Determined.?PC patient samples were limited to treatment naive samples only for this analysis. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0055171.tCP or HCs. The combination tests were determined via multivariate analyses of individual markers, and those showing statistically significant differences between respective patient groups being used further for analysis. Addition of NGAL and MIC-1 improved the area under the curve (AUC6SE) from 0.8 (0.06) to 0.85 (0.05) in distinguishing stage1/2 PC from HCs (Table 5).
Heme Oxygenase heme-oxygenase.com
Just another WordPress site
