12 research outputs found
ΠΠΎΠ·ΠΌΠΎΠΆΠ½ΠΎΡΡΡ ΠΈΡΠΏΠΎΠ»ΡΠ·ΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΡ ΠΈΠ½Π΄Π΅ΠΊΡΠ° PCA3 Π±Π΅Π· ΠΌΠ°ΡΡΠ°ΠΆΠ° ΠΏΡΠ΅Π΄ΡΡΠ°ΡΠ΅Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎΠΉ ΠΆΠ΅Π»Π΅Π·Ρ Π² ΠΌΠΎΡΠ΅ Π΄Π»Ρ Π΄ΠΈΠ°Π³Π½ΠΎΡΡΠΈΠΊΠΈ ΡΠ°ΠΊΠ° ΠΏΡΠ΅Π΄ΡΡΠ°ΡΠ΅Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎΠΉ ΠΆΠ΅Π»Π΅Π·Ρ
Background. Prostate cancer holds one of the leading positions among malignant neoplasms in men. One of the most well-studied tumor-specific maskers is the PCA3 score in urine obtained after prostate massage. However, the study of the PCA3 score without prostate massage can significantly simplify the preanalytical phase of the study and minimize discomfort for the patient.Objective. Investigation of the diagnostic significance of PCA3, determined in urine sediment without prostate massage and its comparison with the PCA3 score after prostate massage.Materials and methods. The study included 2 groups of patients. In the first group (n = 50), the PCA3 score was assessed without prostate massage, and in the second group (n = 15) PCA3 was assessed in urine obtained before and after massage.Results. The area under the ROC-curve (AUC) for the PCA3 score without prostate massage was 0.722 (95 % confidence interval 0.579β0.865; p = 0.008). Using the ROC analysis, the threshold value, sensitivity and specificity were determined: 25, 72.41 % (95 % confidence interval 54.28β 85.30 %) and 57.14 % (95 % confidence interval 36.55β75.53 %), respectively. The PCA3 score after massage was found to be more sensitive than without prostate massage. A small volume of material, less than 20 ml, significantly affects the sensitivity of PCA3 without massage.Conclusion. PCA3 without prostate massage may serve as an option to improve the early diagnosis of prostate cancer, but its advantage over PCA3 after prostate massage has not been shown.ΠΠ²Π΅Π΄Π΅Π½ΠΈΠ΅. Π Π°ΠΊ ΠΏΡΠ΅Π΄ΡΡΠ°ΡΠ΅Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎΠΉ ΠΆΠ΅Π»Π΅Π·Ρ Π·Π°Π½ΠΈΠΌΠ°Π΅Ρ ΠΎΠ΄Π½Ρ ΠΈΠ· Π»ΠΈΠ΄ΠΈΡΡΡΡΠΈΡ
ΠΏΠΎΠ·ΠΈΡΠΈΠΉ ΡΡΠ΅Π΄ΠΈ Π·Π»ΠΎΠΊΠ°ΡΠ΅ΡΡΠ²Π΅Π½Π½ΡΡ
Π½ΠΎΠ²ΠΎΠΎΠ±ΡΠ°Π·ΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΠΉ Ρ ΠΌΡΠΆΡΠΈΠ½. ΠΠ΄Π½ΠΈΠΌ ΠΈΠ· Π½Π°ΠΈΠ±ΠΎΠ»Π΅Π΅ Ρ
ΠΎΡΠΎΡΠΎ ΠΈΠ·ΡΡΠ΅Π½Π½ΡΡ
ΠΎΠΏΡΡ
ΠΎΠ»Π΅ΡΠΏΠ΅ΡΠΈΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΈΡ
ΠΌΠ°ΡΠΊΠ΅ΡΠΎΠ² ΡΠ²Π»ΡΠ΅ΡΡΡ ΠΈΠ½Π΄Π΅ΠΊΡ PCA3 Π² ΠΌΠΎΡΠ΅, ΠΏΠΎΠ»ΡΡΠ΅Π½Π½ΠΎΠΉ ΠΏΠΎΡΠ»Π΅ ΠΏΡΠΎΠ²Π΅Π΄Π΅Π½ΠΈΡ ΠΌΠ°ΡΡΠ°ΠΆΠ° ΠΏΡΠ΅Π΄ΡΡΠ°ΡΠ΅Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎΠΉ ΠΆΠ΅Π»Π΅Π·Ρ. ΠΠ΄Π½Π°ΠΊΠΎ ΠΈΡΡΠ»Π΅Π΄ΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΠ΅ ΠΈΠ½Π΄Π΅ΠΊΡΠ° Π Π‘Π3 Π±Π΅Π· ΠΏΡΠ΅Π΄Π²Π°ΡΠΈΡΠ΅Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΠΌΠ°ΡΡΠ°ΠΆΠ° ΠΏΡΠ΅Π΄ΡΡΠ°ΡΠ΅Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎΠΉ ΠΆΠ΅Π»Π΅Π·Ρ ΠΌΠΎΠΆΠ΅Ρ ΡΡΡΠ΅ΡΡΠ²Π΅Π½Π½ΠΎ ΡΠΏΡΠΎΡΡΠΈΡΡ ΠΏΡΠ΅Π°Π½Π°Π»ΠΈΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΈΠΉ ΡΡΠ°ΠΏ ΠΈΡΡΠ»Π΅Π΄ΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΡ ΠΈ ΠΌΠΈΠ½ΠΈΠΌΠΈΠ·ΠΈΡΠΎΠ²Π°ΡΡ Π΄ΠΈΡΠΊΠΎΠΌΡΠΎΡΡ Π΄Π»Ρ ΠΏΠ°ΡΠΈΠ΅Π½ΡΠ°.Π¦Π΅Π»Ρ ΠΈΡΡΠ»Π΅Π΄ΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΡ β ΠΈΠ·ΡΡΠ΅Π½ΠΈΠ΅ Π΄ΠΈΠ°Π³Π½ΠΎΡΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΎΠΉ Π·Π½Π°ΡΠΈΠΌΠΎΡΡΠΈ ΠΈΠ½Π΄Π΅ΠΊΡΠ° Π Π‘Π3, ΠΎΠΏΡΠ΅Π΄Π΅Π»ΡΠ΅ΠΌΠΎΠ³ΠΎ Π² ΠΎΡΠ°Π΄ΠΊΠ΅ ΠΌΠΎΡΠΈ Π±Π΅Π· ΠΏΡΠΎΠ²Π΅Π΄Π΅Π½ΠΈΡ ΠΌΠ°ΡΡΠ°ΠΆΠ° ΠΏΡΠ΅Π΄ΡΡΠ°ΡΠ΅Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎΠΉ ΠΆΠ΅Π»Π΅Π·Ρ, ΠΈ Π΅Π³ΠΎ ΡΡΠ°Π²Π½Π΅Π½ΠΈΠ΅ Ρ ΠΈΠ½Π΄Π΅ΠΊΡΠΎΠΌ PCA3 ΠΏΠΎΡΠ»Π΅ ΠΌΠ°ΡΡΠ°ΠΆΠ°.ΠΠ°ΡΠ΅ΡΠΈΠ°Π»Ρ ΠΈ ΠΌΠ΅ΡΠΎΠ΄Ρ. Π ΠΈΡΡΠ»Π΅Π΄ΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΠ΅ Π²ΠΊΠ»ΡΡΠ΅Π½Ρ 2 Π³ΡΡΠΏΠΏΡ ΠΏΠ°ΡΠΈΠ΅Π½ΡΠΎΠ². Π 1-ΠΉ Π³ΡΡΠΏΠΏΠ΅ (n = 50) ΠΏΡΠΎΠ²ΠΎΠ΄ΠΈΠ»Π°ΡΡ ΠΎΡΠ΅Π½ΠΊΠ° ΠΈΠ½Π΄Π΅ΠΊΡΠ° PCA3 Π±Π΅Π· ΠΌΠ°ΡΡΠ°ΠΆΠ° ΠΏΡΠ΅Π΄ΡΡΠ°ΡΠ΅Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎΠΉ ΠΆΠ΅Π»Π΅Π·Ρ, Π²ΠΎ 2-ΠΉ Π³ΡΡΠΏΠΏΠ΅ (n = 15) β ΠΎΡΠ΅Π½ΠΊΠ° ΠΈΠ½Π΄Π΅ΠΊΡΠ° PCA3 Π² ΠΌΠΎΡΠ΅, ΠΏΠΎΠ»ΡΡΠ΅Π½Π½ΠΎΠΉ Π΄ΠΎ ΠΈ ΠΏΠΎΡΠ»Π΅ ΠΌΠ°ΡΡΠ°ΠΆΠ°.Π Π΅Π·ΡΠ»ΡΡΠ°ΡΡ. ΠΠ»ΠΎΡΠ°Π΄Ρ ΠΏΠΎΠ΄ ROC-ΠΊΡΠΈΠ²ΠΎΠΉ (AUC) Π΄Π»Ρ ΠΈΠ½Π΄Π΅ΠΊΡΠ° PCA3 Π±Π΅Π· ΠΌΠ°ΡΡΠ°ΠΆΠ° ΠΏΡΠ΅Π΄ΡΡΠ°ΡΠ΅Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎΠΉ ΠΆΠ΅Π»Π΅Π·Ρ ΡΠΎΡΡΠ°Π²ΠΈΠ»Π° 0,722 (95 % Π΄ΠΎΠ²Π΅ΡΠΈΡΠ΅Π»ΡΠ½ΡΠΉ ΠΈΠ½ΡΠ΅ΡΠ²Π°Π» 0,579β0,865;p = 0,008). Π‘ ΠΏΠΎΠΌΠΎΡΡΡ ROC-Π°Π½Π°Π»ΠΈΠ·Π° Π±ΡΠ»ΠΈ ΠΎΠΏΡΠ΅Π΄Π΅Π»Π΅Π½Ρ ΠΏΠΎΡΠΎΠ³ΠΎΠ²ΠΎΠ΅ Π·Π½Π°ΡΠ΅Π½ΠΈΠ΅ 25, ΡΡΠ²ΡΡΠ²ΠΈΡΠ΅Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎΡΡΡ 72,41 % (95 % Π΄ΠΎΠ²Π΅ΡΠΈΡΠ΅Π»ΡΠ½ΡΠΉ ΠΈΠ½ΡΠ΅ΡΠ²Π°Π» 54,28β85,30 %) ΠΈ ΡΠΏΠ΅ΡΠΈΡΠΈΡΠ½ΠΎΡΡΡ 57,14 % (95 % Π΄ΠΎΠ²Π΅ΡΠΈΡΠ΅Π»ΡΠ½ΡΠΉ ΠΈΠ½ΡΠ΅ΡΠ²Π°Π» 36,55β 75,53 %). ΠΠ½Π΄Π΅ΠΊΡ PCA3 ΠΏΠΎΡΠ»Π΅ ΠΌΠ°ΡΡΠ°ΠΆΠ° ΠΎΠΊΠ°Π·Π°Π»ΡΡ Π±ΠΎΠ»Π΅Π΅ ΡΡΠ²ΡΡΠ²ΠΈΡΠ΅Π»ΡΠ½ΡΠΌ, ΡΠ΅ΠΌ Π±Π΅Π· ΠΏΡΠΎΠ²Π΅Π΄Π΅Π½ΠΈΡ ΠΌΠ°ΡΡΠ°ΠΆΠ° ΠΏΡΠ΅Π΄ΡΡΠ°ΡΠ΅Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎΠΉ ΠΆΠ΅Π»Π΅Π·Ρ. ΠΠ°Π»ΡΠΉ ΠΎΠ±ΡΠ΅ΠΌ ΠΌΠ°ΡΠ΅ΡΠΈΠ°Π»Π° (<20 ΠΌΠ») Π·Π½Π°ΡΠΈΡΠ΅Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎ Π²Π»ΠΈΡΠ΅Ρ Π½Π° ΡΡΠ²ΡΡΠ²ΠΈΡΠ΅Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎΡΡΡ ΠΈΠ½Π΄Π΅ΠΊΡΠ° PCA3 Π±Π΅Π· ΠΌΠ°ΡΡΠ°ΠΆΠ°.ΠΠ°ΠΊΠ»ΡΡΠ΅Π½ΠΈΠ΅. ΠΠ½Π΄Π΅ΠΊΡ PCA3 Π±Π΅Π· ΠΌΠ°ΡΡΠ°ΠΆΠ° ΠΌΠΎΠΆΠ΅Ρ ΡΠ»ΡΠΆΠΈΡΡ ΠΎΠΏΡΠΈΠ΅ΠΉ Π΄Π»Ρ ΡΠ»ΡΡΡΠ΅Π½ΠΈΡ ΡΠ°Π½Π½Π΅ΠΉ Π΄ΠΈΠ°Π³Π½ΠΎΡΡΠΈΠΊΠΈ ΡΠ°ΠΊΠ° ΠΏΡΠ΅Π΄ΡΡΠ°ΡΠ΅Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎΠΉ ΠΆΠ΅Π»Π΅Π·Ρ, ΠΎΠ΄Π½Π°ΠΊΠΎ Π½Π΅ Π±ΡΠ»ΠΎ ΠΏΠΎΠΊΠ°Π·Π°Π½ΠΎ Π΅Π³ΠΎ ΠΏΡΠ΅ΠΈΠΌΡΡΠ΅ΡΡΠ²Π° ΠΏΠ΅ΡΠ΅Π΄ ΠΈΠ½Π΄Π΅ΠΊΡΠΎΠΌ PCA3 ΠΏΠΎΡΠ»Π΅ ΠΌΠ°ΡΡΠ°ΠΆΠ° ΠΏΡΠ΅Π΄ΡΡΠ°ΡΠ΅Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎΠΉ ΠΆΠ΅Π»Π΅Π·Ρ
Diagnostic value of PCA3, TMPRSS2:ERG and prostatic specific antigen derivatives in the detection of prostate cancer
Background. Prostate cancer (PCa) is one of the most common malignancy in men. A traditional marker in the laboratory diagnosis ofPCa is the prostatic specific antigen (PSA). However, the low specificity of this marker leads to a large number of unnecessary biopsies. The emergence of various modifications of PSA and tumor-specific genetic markers such as PCA3 and TMPRSS2ERG, have improved the diagnosis of PCa.Objective. Investigation of the diagnostic significance of molecular genetic markers, PCA3 and TMPRSS2:ERG, and their comparison with markers based on PSA isoforms: free/total PSA ratio (%fPSA) and prostate health index (PHI).Materials and methods. The study included 58 men with suspected PCa. All patients were defined PCA3 score and the presence of TMPRSS2:ERG fusion transcript in the urine sediment. Also, PHI and %fPSA were determined in 48 and 51 men, respectively.Results. The area under the ROC-curve regardless of the value of PSA was higher for PCA3 score (0.773, p <0.001), than for %fPSA and PHI: 0.625 (p = 0.131) and 0.735 (p = 0.006), respectively. At clinical sensitivity >95 % PCA3 score had the highest specificity, positive and negative predictive values in men, regardless of the level of PSA: 65.22, 80.95, and 93.75 %, respectively. In men with PSA level of 2β10 ng/ml the area under the ROC-curve for PCA3, %fPSA and PHI was 0.776 (p = 0.001), 0.629 (p = 0.144) and 0.729 (p = 0.009), respectively. At high sensitivity (>95 %) characteristics of the diagnostic test PCA3 in men with a PSA level of 2β10 ng/ml also also exceeded those for PHIand %>fPSA. The negative predictive valuefor PCA3score in this group ofmen was 100 %. The sensitivity ofdetection ofthe TMPRSS2:ERG fusion transcript in urine was 37.14 %, specificity 86.96 %, and the positive predictive value was 81.25 %.Conclusion. The use ofthe PCA3 score in combination with the detection of TMPRSS2:ERG fusion will improve the assessment of PCa risk in men with PSA levels between 2 and 10ng/ml (the βgrey zoneβ)
On the Application of Silicate Glasses with CdSxSe1βx Semiconductor Nanocrystals as Optical Thermometers and Optical Filters with a Controlled Absorption Edge
ΠΠ± Π·Π½Π΅ΡΠ³Π΅ΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΎΠΉ ΡΠ°Π²ΠΈΡΠΈΠΌΠΎΡΡΠΈ Π½Π΅ΡΠΏΡΡΠ³ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΠΏΠΎΠΏΠ΅ΡΠ΅ΡΠ½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΡΠ΅ΡΠ΅Π½ΠΈΡ
Lipid profile in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 depending on the outcome of its acute phase: data from the international registry "Dynamics analysis of comorbidities in SARS-CoV-2 infection survivors"
Aim. To study the lipid profile in hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) depending on the outcome of its acute phase according to the AKTIV international registry.Material and methods. The AKTIV registry included men and women over 18 years of age with a diagnosis of COVID-19, who were treated in a hospital. A total of 9364 patients were included in the registry, of which 623 patients were analyzed for levels of total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and triglycerides on days 1-2 of hospitalization. The level of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) was calculated using the Friedewald equation.Results. We found that a decrease in LDL-C level was significantly associated with an unfavorable prognosis for hospitalized patients with COVID-19. This pattern persisted in both univariate and multivariate analyses. LDL-C levels in the final multivariate model had a significant relationship with the prognosis (an increase in the death risk by 1,7 times with a decrease per 1 mmol/l). In addition, we found that the survival of patients with an indicator level of <2,45 mmol/l is significantly worse than in patients with an LDL-C level β₯2,45 mmol/l. All patients with high LDL-C ((β₯4,9 mmol/l) survived, while among patients with low LDL-C (<2,45 mmol/l. All patients with high LDL-C ((β₯4,9 mmol/l) survived, while among patients with low LDL-C (<1,4 mmol/l), mortality was 13,04%, which was significantly higher than in patients with LDL-C β₯1,4 mmol/l (6,32%, p=0,047).Conclusion. A decrease in LDL-C in the acute period is significantly associated with an unfavorable prognosis for hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Determination of LDL-C can be included in the examination program for patients with COVID-19. However, the predictive value of this parameter requires further study in prospective clinical studies