全自动DNA图像分析系统在胰腺恶性肿瘤诊断中的价值

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1004-616x.2021.06.009

癌变·畸变·突变 ›› 2021, Vol. 33 ›› Issue (6): 451-454.doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-616x.2021.06.009

全自动DNA图像分析系统在胰腺恶性肿瘤诊断中的价值

王蕊, 王珩, 吴娟, 纪晓坤, 郭晓, 马阳, 杜芸

河北医科大学第四医院癌检中心, 河北石家庄 050011

收稿日期:2021-02-13 修回日期:2021-09-14 出版日期:2021-11-30 发布日期:2021-12-04
通讯作者: 杜芸,E-mail:aijianzhongxin@163.com E-mail:aijianzhongxin@163.com
作者简介:王蕊,E-mail:wr80922@126.com。
基金资助:
河北省卫生厅医学科学研究重点课题计划（20190711）

Values of automatic DNA image analyses in diagnosis of pancreatic malignant tumors

WANG Rui, WANG Heng, WU Juan, JI Xiaokun, GUO Xiao, MA Yang, DU Yun

The Cancer Center, The Fourth Hospital of Hebei Medical University, Shijiazhuang 050011, Hebei, China

Received:2021-02-13 Revised:2021-09-14 Online:2021-11-30 Published:2021-12-04

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 目的： 评估全自动DNA图像分析（DNA-ICM）系统在诊断胰腺恶性肿瘤中的价值。方法： 108例可疑胰腺恶性肿瘤患者行超声内镜引导下细针穿刺，所获标本分别行常规细胞学检测及DNA-ICM检测，以组织病理学诊断结果为标准，参考临床随访资料，分析细胞学、DNA-ICM及两者联合的诊断价值。结果： 常规细胞学诊断的敏感性（93.1%）、特异性（95.2%）、阳性预测值（98.8%）、阴性预测值（76.9%）及准确率（93.5%）均高于DNA-ICM（分别为90.8%、90.5%、97.5%、70.4%、90.7%），但两者之间的差异均无统计学意义（P>0.05）。两种方法联合诊断的各项指标分别为敏感性（95.4%）、特异性（90.5%）、阳性预测值（97.6%）、阴性预测值（82.6%）及准确率（94.4%）。两者联合诊断的敏感性、阴性预测值、准确率均高于单独诊断，但其差异均无统计学意义（P>0.05）。结论： DNA-ICM联合细胞学诊断有很好的临床应用价值，DNA-ICM是胰腺细胞学诊断的一种较好的辅助诊断手段。

关键词: DNA图像分析, 超声内镜引导下细针穿刺, 胰腺, 恶性肿瘤

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To evaluate values of automatic DNA image analyses (DNA-ICM) in diagnosis of pancreatic malignant tumors. METHODS: Patients with suspected pancreatic malignant tumor who underwent endoscopic ultrasonics guided fine needle puncture were recruited for our study. Collected samples were tested by conventional cytology and DNA-ICM. Diagnostic values of cytology,DNA-ICM and their combination were analyzed using histopathological diagnosis as the standard reference to clinical follow-up data. RESULTS: Among the 108 patients,sensitivity,specificity,positive predictive value,negative predictive value and accuracy of conventional cytological diagnosis were higher than those of DNA-ICM (93.1% vs 90.8%,95.2% vs 90.5%,98.8% vs 97.5%,76.9% vs 70.4%,93.5% vs 90.7%). However,there was no statistical significance between them (P>0.05). The combined diagnosis indexes for the two methods were 95.4%,90.5%,97.6%,82.6%,94.4%,respectively. Sensitivity,negative predictive value and accuracy of the combined diagnosis were higher than those of single diagnosis,but the differences were not statistically significant (P>0.05). CONCLUSION: DNA-ICM combined cytological diagnosis has great application value,and DNA-ICM showed good auxiliary diagnostic values for pancreatic cytology diagnosis.

Key words: DNA-ICM, EUS-FNA, pancreatic, malignancy

中图分类号:

R734.2

王蕊, 王珩, 吴娟, 纪晓坤, 郭晓, 马阳, 杜芸. 全自动DNA图像分析系统在胰腺恶性肿瘤诊断中的价值[J]. 癌变·畸变·突变, 2021, 33(6): 451-454.

WANG Rui, WANG Heng, WU Juan, JI Xiaokun, GUO Xiao, MA Yang, DU Yun. Values of automatic DNA image analyses in diagnosis of pancreatic malignant tumors[J]. Carcinogenesis, Teratogenesis & Mutagenesis, 2021, 33(6): 451-454.

参考文献

[1] HACKENG W M, HRUBAN R H, OFFERHAUS G J, et al. Surgical and molecular pathology of pancreatic neoplasms[J]. Diagn Pathol, 2016, 11(1):47.
[2] AZAR I, VIRK G, ESFANDIARIFARD S, et al. Treatment and survival rates of stage IV pancreatic cancer at VA hospitals:a nation-wide study[J]. J Gastrointest Oncol, 2019, 10(4):703-711.
[3] WANG M, HAO C, MA Q, et al. DNA image cytometry test for primary screening of esophageal cancer:a population-based multi-center study in high-risk areas in China[J]. Chin J Cancer Res, 2016, 28(4):404-412.
[4] GARNER D. Clinical application of DNA ploidy to cervical cancer screening:a review[J]. World J Clin Oncol, 2014, 5(5):931-965.
[5] NGHIEM V T, DAVIES K R, BECK J R, et al. Economic evaluation of DNA ploidy analysis vs liquid-based cytology for cervical screening[J]. Br J Cancer, 2015, 112(12):1951-1957.
[6] DU Y, GUO X, WANG R, et al. The correlation between EGFR mutation status and DNA content of lung adenocarcinoma cells in pleural effusion[J]. J Cancer, 2020, 11(8):2265-2272.
[7] COSTA A F, POGERE A, PASINATO A P B F, et al. DNA ploidy measurement and human papillomavirus in abnormal cervical cytology[J]. Cytopathology, 2021, 32(2):180-186.
[8] DU Y, GUO X, LIU Y, et al. A DNA quantitative analysis of lung cancer cells with different pathological types from bronchial brush specimens and its clinical significance[J]. Int J Clin Exp Pathol, 2020, 13(8):2106-2114.
[9] DUMONCEAU J M, DEPREZ P H, JENSSEN C, et al. Indications, results, and clinical impact of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided sampling in gastroenterology:European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Clinical Guideline-Updated January 2017[J]. Endoscopy, 2017, 49(7):695-714.
[10] BAEK H W, PARK M J, RHEE Y Y, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration cytology of pancreatic lesions[J]. J Pathol Transl Med, 2015, 49(1):52-60.
[11] DU C, CHAI N L, LINGHU E Q, et al. Incidents and adverse events of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration for pancreatic cystic lesions[J]. World J Gastroenterol, 2017, 23(30):5610-5618.
[12] LI C, WU L, DENG Y, et al. DNA aneuploidy with image cytometry for detecting dysplasia and carcinoma in oral potentially malignant disorders:a prospective diagnostic study[J]. Cancer Med, 2020, 9(17):6411-6420.
[13] HEWITT M J, MCPHAIL M J, POSSAMAI L, et al. EUS-guided FNA for diagnosis of solid pancreatic neoplasms:a meta-analysis[J]. Gastrointest Endosc, 2012, 75(2):319-331.
[14] DATTA M, LARONDE D, PALCIC B, et al. The role of DNA image cytometry in screening oral potentially malignant lesions using brushings:a systematic review[J]. Oral Oncol, 2019, 96:51-59.
[15] PARFENOVA E, LIU K Y P, HARRISON A, et al. An improved algorithm using a Health Canada-approved DNA-image cytometry system for non-invasive screening of high-grade oral lesions[J]. J Oral Pathol Med, 2021, 50(5):502-509.

全自动DNA图像分析系统在胰腺恶性肿瘤诊断中的价值

Values of automatic DNA image analyses in diagnosis of pancreatic malignant tumors

PDF

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

参考文献

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

[1]	薛松, 胡加海, 董祥宁. PGAM5在胰腺癌中的表达及其与临床病理指标的关系[J]. 癌变·畸变·突变, 2024, 36(1): 29-34.
[2]	刘颖, 廉亚丽, 董律吏, 郭晓, 王蕊, 纪晓坤, 杜芸. 人工智能在甲状腺针吸细胞病理诊断中的应用进展[J]. 癌变·畸变·突变, 2023, 35(5): 398-399.
[3]	李伟, 吴胜, 田宇剑, 唐晓明, 蔡创, 胡浩. 乌司他丁联合金属胆道支架对肝外胆道梗阻胰腺癌的治疗效果[J]. 癌变·畸变·突变, 2023, 35(4): 292-295,319.
[4]	李燕, 冯军花, 赵红峥, 张金艳, 满宏伟. 人血清半胱氨酸蛋白酶抑制剂S及肿瘤标志物在口腔颌面部恶性肿瘤中的诊断价值[J]. 癌变·畸变·突变, 2023, 35(3): 192-196.
[5]	孟琳, 杨华宇, 马秀梅. 剪接因子SF2/ASF在胰腺癌中的表达及其临床意义[J]. 癌变·畸变·突变, 2023, 35(3): 209-214.
[6]	黄美慧, 许圳南, 薛家健, 杜则澎, 许海雄, 刘明发. 亚甲基四氢叶酸脱氢酶2与肿瘤表型关系的研究进展[J]. 癌变·畸变·突变, 2022, 34(5): 400-403.
[7]	张宗敏. 甲状腺微小癌是否需要手术[J]. 癌变·畸变·突变, 2021, 33(5): 325-326.
[8]	王琛瑶, 梁百慧, 吴锦源, 唐梓涵, 许小文, 尹梓健, 丁雅琼, 方雄钊, 李栢芝, 文姝佚, 程转, 詹涵, 张粤烽, 王泫哲, 何仕龙, 张可洵, 刘雅骐, 周飞, 熊兴东, 白春英, 许丽艳, 李恩民. RAC1对恶性肿瘤的调控作用及其分子机制研究进展[J]. 癌变·畸变·突变, 2021, 33(5): 401-404.
[9]	程书钧. 衰老和恶性肿瘤──防治的思考[J]. 癌变·畸变·突变, 2021, 33(3): 161-162.
[10]	陈婉娴, 王思梦, 陈张瑜, 王潘集, 许丽艳, 李恩民. 细胞分裂周期蛋白42在肿瘤中的作用及其分子机制研究进展[J]. 癌变·畸变·突变, 2020, 32(2): 159-161.
[11]	高杰, 张晓, 魏超. 差异表达miRNA在胰腺癌预后判断中的价值[J]. 癌变·畸变·突变, 2019, 31(3): 173-179.
[12]	魏超, 张晓, 高杰. 长链非编码RNA与mRNA在胰腺癌中的差异表达及其预后价值[J]. 癌变·畸变·突变, 2019, 31(2): 119-126,132.
[13]	王萍, 刘冰峰, 杨云风, 蔡羽薇, 谭娜, 姚丽娟, 罗燃燃, 张果. 肥胖小鼠胰腺组织肿瘤相关基因突变频率的分析[J]. 癌变·畸变·突变, 2018, 30(3): 182-187.
[14]	张静, 岳文涛. DKK1影响恶性肿瘤骨转移机制的研究进展[J]. 癌变·畸变·突变, 2017, 29(2): 155-157.
[15]	黄神姣, 陈敦金, 谭鹰, 夏华安, You MJ. 谷胱甘肽转移酶基因多态性与妇科恶性肿瘤易感性和预后的相关性研究进展[J]. 癌变·畸变·突变, 2016, 28(1): 73-76.