基因标志物与乳腺癌的预后关系

乳腺癌是女性常见的恶性肿瘤之一，近年来其发病率呈现明显上升趋势，由于临床肿瘤学家们的普遍关注，在发病、诊断和治疗等环节上已经取得了较大进展。早期诊断和提高诊断率对临床治疗预后有及其重要的价值。随着分子生物学技术的飞速发展，临床上已有可能对肿瘤患者进行常规性的基因标志物的检测，而基因标志物的检测对实现早期诊断、制定治疗方案及进行预后评估具有重要的价值。本文试对bcl—2、ER、PR、CerbB-2、p53、Sc11及Ps2与乳腺癌预后之间的关系作一综述。     

乳腺癌肿瘤标志物的研究进展

乳腺癌是女性常见的恶性肿瘤之一,近年来其发病率不断上升,已成为严重威胁妇女健康的主要疾病。长期以来人们对乳腺癌肿瘤标志物的研究非常重视,尤其近年来对癌基     

乳腺癌预后标志物的研究进展

乳腺癌是女性常见的恶性肿瘤.为了提高存活率,临床借助于预后标志物,判断病人的预后,以给予适当的治疗.本文对与乳腺癌预后有关的一些蛋白质分子生物学标志物进行综述.     

脓毒症患者预后相关生物标志物研究进展

脓毒症是由感染因素导致的全身炎症反应综合征,其发病率和病死率均较高。脓毒症是一个动态发展的过程,生物标志物与其早期诊断、危险分层、预后评估等密切相关。本文就脓毒症患者预后相关生物标志物研究进展作一综述。     

重症肺炎相关生物标志物的研究进展

重症肺炎是呼吸系统急危重症之一,通常合并急性呼吸衰竭和感染性休克,尽管治疗手段不断更新进步,但病死率仍较高。临床上及早准确地评估患者的病情严重程度及预后,并采取适当的治疗方式,将有助于降低病死率。因此,有效生物标志物的鉴定在疾病评估、预后判断和临床干预等方面具有重要意义。本文就重症肺炎相关生物标志物的研究作一综述。     

乳腺癌预后标志物——组织蛋白酶D

肿瘤标志物在研究判定肿瘤发生、发展的分化、逆转及预后等方面的作用。一直是临床检验师和医生十分关注的热门话题。本文报告乳腺癌标志物－－组织蛋白酶Ｄ表达与预后存在明显相关性，是所有乳腺癌病人预后差的单一标志物。     

急性肾损伤生物标志物的研究进展

<正>急性肾损伤(AKI)指在多种病因引起的肾功能快速下降而出现的临床综合征,包括尚无肾衰竭和已有肾衰竭的不同损伤阶段,其诊断标准为:肾功能在48h内突然降低,至少2次血清肌酐(Scr)升高的绝对值≥0.3mg/dL(26.5μmol/L);或SCr较前一次升高50%;或持续6h以上尿量0.5mL/(kg·h)。近年来AKI的发病率逐年升高[1],约5%的住院患者可发     

浅谈动脉粥样硬化相关生物标志物研究进展

目的探讨动脉粥样硬化(AS)相关生物标志物研究现状及应用进展。检索近年来国内外文献资料,总结动脉粥样硬化相关的炎性标志物、脂质标志物、出凝血标志物及基因标志物的研究进展,并对上述研究的应用进行展望。AS是脂蛋白代谢异常、炎性因子作用、单核/巨噬细胞黏附和血小板活化作用及基因异常等多因素共同作用的结果,AS相关的炎性标志物、脂质标志物、出凝血标志物及基因标志物检测对该类疾病的诊断和治疗有着重要的意义。     

心力衰竭超声心动图检查及生物标志物的研究进展

各种心脏病患者终末期将发生心力衰竭（heart failure，HF）。据美国心肺血液研究所（NHLBI）统计，〉65岁的人群中HF发病率约为10．0％。而HF6年致残率在男性患者中为22．0％，女性患者中为46．0％。1993年至2003年．美国人群总死亡率下降2．0％，但其中HF病死率却上升了20．5％。HF患者的猝死发生率是普通人群的6-9倍。我国的HF患病率为0．9％，其中男性为0．7％，女性为1．0％．且随年龄增高，HF的患病率显著上升（P〈0．01）。     

Biomarkers, tumor markers and prognostic markers in breast cancer

Biomarkers are measured in the management of breast cancer patients for the following purposes: (1) early detection, (2) monitoring of advanced breast cancer patients, (3) prediction of prognosis, and (4) prediction of therapeutic response. Summarized results investigated by the Study Group of the Japanese Breast Cancer Society in 2001 concerning the present status of tumor marker measurement in Japan and usefulness of tumor markers for the evaluation for therapeutic response are presented. Significance of two prognostic markers, vessel invasion and HER2 status were discussed at the 9th St Gallen International Consensus Meeting in 2005. Current status, clinical significance, problems and future directions on predictive markers for response to endocrine therapy and cytotoxic chemotherapy are also discussed.     

乳腺癌微钙化形成的分子机制

乳腺微钙化（MC）是乳腺癌重要的影像学特征。在乳腺组织中常见两种类型的MC物质,Ⅰ型MC（草酸钙）仅存在于良性病变中,而Ⅱ型MC（羟磷灰石）通常存在于恶性病变中。研究者们利用这一影像学特征制定和发明了先进的影像诊断程序和成像技术,然而MC形成的机制却了解甚少。因此,本文试图解释乳腺癌MC形成的分子机制,其重点在于部分异质性乳腺癌细胞如何获得成骨样表型并启动病理性钙化过程。同时,本文还强调了骨形成蛋白、肿瘤相关巨噬细胞以及上皮间质化过程在病理性钙化过程中的调控作用。     

Biochemical markers as prognostic indices in breast cancer

Traditional prognostic markers in breast cancer include histological variables such as tumor size, grade, and axillary node status. In recent years some new potential prognostic markers of a biochemical nature have been described: estradiol receptors, progesterone receptors, epidermal growth factor receptors, erbB-2 proto-oncogene, and certain proteolytic enzymes. None of these new markers excels axillary node status as a prognostic marker. Biochemical markers can, however, be evaluated with use of minimal surgery and may help distinguish the minority of aggressive axillary-node-negative breast cancers.     

乳腺癌DCE-MRI表现与分子标志物的相关性

目的 分析ER、PR、HER2或Ki-67不同表达状态乳腺癌在DCE-MRI形态学及动态增强特征之间的差异,探讨乳腺癌MRI表现与分子标志物表达状态的相关性。方法 收集经免疫组化检测确定ER、PR、HER2及Ki-67表达状态的乳腺癌病例,均在疗前接受乳腺MRI检查;比较ER、PR、HER2及Ki-67不同表达状态癌灶的MRI形态学征象、动态增强特征的差异。结果 共269例入组。ER阳性癌灶出现小肿块的比例稍高于阴性者,但差异无统计学意义（P=0.055）;ER阴性癌肿边缘光滑的比例稍高于阳性者,但差异亦无统计学意义（P=0.061）。PR阴性癌肿出现边缘光滑的比例高于阳性组（P=0.033）。Ki-67低表达者癌肿出现边缘光滑的比例低于过表达者（P<0.001）。相对于过表达者,HER2低表达及Ki-67低表达者均倾向出现小病灶（P均<0.05）。ER、PR、HER2及不同Ki-67表达状态下癌灶MRI动态增强特征差异无统计学意义。结论 乳腺癌MRI所示癌灶大小和/或边缘状态与ER、PR、HER2及Ki-67表达有一定相关性,动态增强特征与诸分子标记物之间未见稳定相关性。     

Molecular markers for the diagnosis of non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer

The diagnostic efficiency of oncomarkers, such as cytokeratins 8, 18 (TPA, TPS, UBC) and vascular endothelial growth factor, was evaluated to diagnose non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer. The serum and urinary levels of the markers were studied using enzyme immunoassay; their diagnostic properties were assessed by the ROC-analysis. Comparison of the groups of apparently healthy individuals, patients with chronic cystitis, and those with noninvasive bladder cancer showed that the oncomarkers might potentially serve as screening parameters of the early diagnosis of bladder cancer and, in a number of cases, permit the differential diagnosis with chronic cystitis.     

Molecular markers that predict response to colon cancer therapy

Progress in the treatment of colon cancer depends on the development of target-based molecules built on an improved understanding of the molecular biology of the disease. Defining end points for chemotherapy resistance is needed as drug resistance develops quickly and patients demonstrate variation in response to chemotherapy. Many techniques that measure a marker's preponderance have been developed including biochemical, immunohistochemical, genomics, proteomics or a combination thereof. However, standardization of these techniques that measure either genes or their protein products is urgently needed. This article reviews several markers (TS,TP, DPD, FT, EGFR, VEGF, CD44v6, TRAIL, microsatellite instability, allelic deletions, oncogenes and suppressor genes [c-myc, Ki-Ras, p53, p21, Topo I, Topo IIalpha, Fos, hMLH1, Bcl-2/Bax and MDR1], MDR-related proteins [Pgp, MRP and LRP], genomic polymorphisms [XPD, ERCC1, GSTP1 and TS 3 -UTR] and COX-;2) that influence DNA metabolism, DNA damage, programmed cell death, the immune or vascular system, or lead to mutations. When combined together and tested by newly developed genomic and proteomic approaches, many of these markers provide a more sensitive indicative predictor of response than when evaluated separately or by older biochemical, immunohistologic or morphologic methods. A global approach involving the simultaneous testing of several predictive multimarkers will provide critical information for improving chemotherapy to alleviate suffering from this disease.     

Prognostic markers in node-negative breast cancer: a prospective study

BACKGROUND: Despite years of research, it is still unclear which women with node-negative (N-) breast cancer will need adjuvant chemotherapy and which women are being treated unnecessarily. Our goal was to determine which factors best predicted disease free survival (DFS) or cancer-specific overall survival (OS) and, therefore, select the correct patients for treatment. A total of 11 parameters were measured: estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), age, race, ploidy status, %G0/G1 (% non-DNA synthesis), %S (% S-phase), cathepsin D status, size, stage, and histologic grade. RESULTS: In this prospective study, we followed 556 N- patients diagnosed between 1991 and 1996. The tumors were 56% ER+, 51% PR+, 30% diploid, with a mean %S of 8.9%. The level of cathepsin D ranged from 0.50 to 155 pmol/mg of protein with a mean of 42.9 pmol/mg of protein. There were 87 recurrences (16%) and 72 cancer deaths (13%), with a median follow-up of 7.8 years. Ploidy status (p = 0.01), S-phase activity (p = 0.003), G1 phase activity (p = 0.02) and age (p = 0.01) were able to significantly predict DFS in a univariate manner. All of the measurable factors were significant or borderline significant in predicting OS in a univariate manner except for age, race, and ER status. In multivariate analysis with S-phase included, it was the only remaining factor in DFS and OS; with S-phase excluded, age and ploidy status remained as factors for DFS in stepwise regression, while PR, size, and cathepsin D were the remaining factors that predicted cancer-specific OS. The effect of adjuvant treatment on prognosis was also analyzed. CONCLUSIONS: Both biochemical and clinical parameters have the potential to predict prognosis for N- breast cancer. In this large prospective clinical trial, with a median follow-up of 7.8 years, no individual marker adequately predicted the prognosis for an individual patient. %S activity was the best independent marker, but only 77% of the tumors provided this value. Subset analysis provided improved prognostication, but there were limits to its utility. These data represents a definitive study starting in 1991 and ending in 2002.