引用本文:李友琼，阳文辉，黄慧嫔，覃桂芳，韦支丰.EB病毒DNA载量检测在门诊诊断鼻咽癌患者中的应用价值[J].中国临床新医学,2013,6(5):415-418.
【打印本页】   【下载PDF全文】   【查看/发表评论】  【EndNote】   【RefMan】   【BibTex】
←前一篇|后一篇→ 过刊浏览    高级检索
本文已被：浏览 1813次   下载 964次 本文二维码信息
码上扫一扫！
分享到： 微信 更多
字体:加大+|默认|缩小-
EB病毒DNA载量检测在门诊诊断鼻咽癌患者中的应用价值
李友琼，阳文辉，黄慧嫔，覃桂芳，韦支丰
530021　南宁，广西壮族自治区人民医院检验科（李友琼，阳文辉，黄慧嫔，覃桂芳）；530011　南宁，广西中医药大学附属瑞康医院病理科（韦支丰）
摘要:
［摘要］　目的　探讨EB病毒DNA（EBV-DNA）载量检测在门诊诊断鼻咽癌患者中的应用价值。方法　收集61例门诊就诊的可疑鼻咽癌患者，同时进行EBV-DNA载量、EBV VCA-IgA和EBV EA-IgA检测，并与病理组织切片检查作比较。结果　病理组织切片检出鼻咽癌47例；EBV-DNA载量、EBV VCA-IgA、EBV EA-IgA检测的灵敏度分别为76.6%（36/47）、55.3%（26/47）和45.8%（22/48）；特异度分别为64.3%（9/14）、71.4%（10/14）和92.3%（12/13）；正确率分别为73.8%［（36+9）/61］、59.0%［（26+10）/61］和55.7%［（22+12）/61］；三种检测方法阳性检出率与病理组织切片检查比较，除EBV-DNA载量检测差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）外，其余两法均低于病理组织切片检查（P均<0.01）；EBV-DNA载量、EBV VCA-IgA和EBV EA-IgA三种方法检测在NPC组和对照组及NPC临床分期的中位滴度，除EBV-DNA载量检测差异有统计学意义（P<0.01）外，其他两法差异均无统计学意义（P均>0.05）。结论　在这三种鼻咽癌的筛查技术中，EBV-DNA载量检测优于EBV VCA-IgA和EBV EA-IgA检测。
关键词:  EB病毒DNA  鼻咽癌  载量  VCA-IgA  EA-IgA
DOI：10.3969/j.issn.1674-3806.2013.05.05
分类号:R 739.6
基金项目:广西卫生厅科研课题（编号：桂卫Z2010248）
The value of Epstein-Barr virus DNA load detection in the outpatient with NPC
LI You-qiong, YANG Wen-hui, HUANG Hui-ping, et al.
Department of Laboratory Medicine, the People’s Hospital of Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, Nanning 530021, China
Abstract:
［Abstract］　Objective　To study the value of Epstein-Barr virus DNA load detection in the outpatient with nasopharyngeal carcinoma(NPC).Methods　Sixty-one outpatients with suspected NPC were detected respectively EBV-DNA load, EBV VCA-IgA and EA-IgA, and compared with histopathological diagnosis.Results　Those cases were detected 47 cases of nasopharyngeal carcinoma through histopathology. The sensitivities of EBV-DNA load, VCA-IgA and EA-IgA were 76.6%（36/47）,55.3%（26/47）, and 45.8%（22/48） respectively; the specificities were 64.3%（9/14）,71.4%（10/14）,and 92.3%（12/13） respectively; the accuracies were 73.8%［（36+9）/61］,59.0%［（26+10）/61］, and 55.7%［（22+12）/61］respectively. Compared with histopathology, the positive rate of the three detection methods except EBV-DNA load showed no significant difference（P>0.05）, the other were significant difference（P<0.01）; The methods of EBV-DNA load, VCA-IgA and EA-IgA were performed between NPC and control groups, and among NPC clinical stages, except that the detection of EBV-DNA load was significant difference（P<0.01）, the other were no significant difference （P>0.05）.Conclusion　In three kinds of nasopharyngeal cancer screening technology, EBV-DNA load was better than EBV VCA-IgA and EA-IgA.
Key words:  EB virus DNA  Nasopharyngeal carcinoma(NPC)  Load  VCA-IgA  EA-IgA