切换至 "中华医学电子期刊资源库"

中华乳腺病杂志(电子版) ›› 2013, Vol. 07 ›› Issue (05) : 334 -337. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-0807.2013.05.005

论著

乳腺癌患者血清抗核抗体的表达
张道强1,(), 张春江2, 隋秀梅1, 杨佐治1, 周磊3   
  1. 1.264400 文登,山东省威海市文登中心医院检验科
    2.264200 威海,山东省威海市立医院
    3.264400 文登市疾病预防控制中心
  • 收稿日期:2013-01-24 出版日期:2013-10-01
  • 通信作者: 张道强
  • 基金资助:
    环境化学与生态毒理学国家重点实验室开放基金项目(KF2010-18)威海市科技发展计划项目(2010-3-89-1)

Expression of serum antinuclear antibodies in breast cancer patients

Dao-qiang ZHANG1,(), Chunjiang ZHANG1, Xiu-mei SUI1, Zuo-zhi YANG1, Lei ZHOU1   

  1. 1.Department of Clinical Laboratory,Wendeng Central Hospital,Wendeng 264400,China
  • Received:2013-01-24 Published:2013-10-01
  • Corresponding author: Dao-qiang ZHANG
引用本文:

张道强, 张春江, 隋秀梅, 杨佐治, 周磊. 乳腺癌患者血清抗核抗体的表达[J/OL]. 中华乳腺病杂志(电子版), 2013, 07(05): 334-337.

Dao-qiang ZHANG, Chunjiang ZHANG, Xiu-mei SUI, Zuo-zhi YANG, Lei ZHOU. Expression of serum antinuclear antibodies in breast cancer patients[J/OL]. Chinese Journal of Breast Disease(Electronic Edition), 2013, 07(05): 334-337.

目的

了解乳腺癌患者血清抗核抗体阳性率、细胞内定位及免疫荧光图形特点,探索抗核抗体作为肿瘤标志物的可能性。

方法

收集2008 年11 月至2009 年12 月山东省威海市文登中心医院收治的97 例女性乳腺癌,其中有腋窝淋巴结转移53 例,无转移44 例,52 例女性乳腺良性肿瘤患者的术前血液标本,56 例健康女性血液样本作为对照,应用间接免疫荧光法(IIF)检测血清中抗核抗体。统计分析用χ2 检验,若P<0.05。再进行两两比较。

结果

抗核抗体阳性率分别为对照组16.1%(9/56),良性肿瘤组21.2%(11/52), 乳腺癌未转移组45.4%(20/44),乳腺癌转移组43.4%(23/53),4 组比较差异有统计学意义(χ2=16.369,P=0.001)。两两比较显示乳腺癌未转移组、乳腺癌转移组抗核抗体阳性率高于对照组(χ2=10.332,P=0.001;χ2=9.803,P=0.002)。对照组、良性肿瘤组、乳腺癌组三组间的抗核抗体、抗核质抗体阳性率比较,差异有统计学意义(χ2=16.321、7.902,P=0.000、0.019),抗胞质抗体阳性率比较差异无统计学意义(χ2=5.995,P=0.050)。乳腺癌组与对照组的抗核抗体、抗核质抗体差异有统计学意义(χ2=12.636、5.972,P=0.000、0.015),抗胞质抗体差异无统计学意义(χ2=4.473,P=0.034)。乳腺癌组与良性肿瘤组相比,抗核抗体差异有统计学意义(χ2=7.869,P=0.005),抗核质抗体、抗胞质抗体差异无统计学意义(χ2=3.829、2.514,P=0.051、0.113)。乳腺癌转移组与未转移组抗核抗体、抗核质抗体、抗胞质抗体比较,差异无统计学意义(χ2=0.041、1.607、1.861,P>0.050)。四组间血清抗核质抗体的比较差异有统计学意义(χ2=9.900,P=0.019)。

结论

乳腺癌患者血清的抗核抗体与健康人生理性抗核抗体不同,有助于深入认识乳腺癌患者自身免疫现象, 以供临床参考。

Objective

To investigate the positive rate, intracellular localization and immunofluorescent characteristics of serum antinuclear antibodies in breast cancer patients, and to explore the possibility of antinuclear antibody as tumor markers.

Methods

From November 2008 to December 2009, preoperative blood samples were collected from 97 breast cancer women, including 53 patients with axillary lymph node metastasis and 44 with no metastasis, and 52 women with benign breast tumor, and 56 healthy women served as control.Indirect immunofluorescence was used to detect the antinuclear antibodies in serum.The data were analyzed by chi-square test.If P >0.05, pairwise comparison was conducted.

Results

The positive rate of antinuclear antibody was 16.1% (9/56) in the control group,21.2% (11/52) in benign tumor group,45.4% (20/40)in non-metastatic breast cancer group, 43.4% (23/53 ) in metastatic breast cancer group.The difference among the 4 groups was statistically significant (χ2 =16.369, P=0.001).Pairwise comparison showed the positive rate of antinuclear antibody in non-metastatic breast cancer group and metastatic breast cancer group was higher than that in control group (χ2=10.332,P=0.001;χ2=9.803,P=0.002).Among control group,benign tumor and breast cancer group, statistically significant difference was found in the positive rates of antinuclear antibodies (χ2=16.321, P=0.000)and anti-nucleoplasmic antibodies (χ2=7.902, P=0.019),but not in the positive rate of anti-cytoplasmic antibodies (χ2=5.995, P=0.050).Comparing breast cancer group and the control group, statistically significant difference was found in antinuclear antibodies and antinucleoplasmic antibodies(χ2 =12.636,5.972,P=0.000,0.015), but not in anti-cytoplasmic antibodies (χ2 =4.473, P=0.034 ).Comparing breast cancer group and the benign tumor group, statistically significant difference was found in antinuclear antibodies (χ2=7.869,P=0.005),but not in anti-nucleoplasmic and anticytoplasmic antibodies (χ2 = 3.829, 2.514, P = 0.051, 0.113).There was no statistically significant difference in the antinuclear, anti-nucleoplasmic, anti-cytoplasmic antibodies between non-metastatic breast cancer and metastatic breast cancer patients (χ2 =0.041, 1.607, 1.861, P >0.050).Anti-nucleoplasmic antibodies showed no statistical difference among the four groups (χ2=9.900, P=0.019).

Conclusion

The serum anti-nuclear antibodies in breast cancer patients are substantially different from those in the healthy population, which provides a better understanding of autoimmunity of breast cancer patients for clinical diagnosis.

表1 各组患者血清抗核抗体检测结果
表2 乳腺肿瘤患者各组间血清抗核抗体细胞内荧光定位比较(例)
表3 乳腺癌转移组与未转移组血清抗核抗体细胞内荧光定位比较(例)
表4 各组血清抗核质抗体比较
[1]
Siegel R, Naishadham D, Jemal A.Cancer statistics,2012[J].CA Cancer J Clin,2012,62(1):10-29.
[2]
Torchilin VP,Iakoubov LZ, Estrov Z.Antinuclear autoantibodies as potential antineoplastic agents [J].Trends Immunol,2001,22(8):424-427.
[3]
Tavassoli FA, Devilee P.WHO classification of tumors:pathology and genetics of tumors of the breast and female genital organs[M].Lyon: IARC Press,2003.
[4]
黄哲宙,陈万青,吴春晓,等.中国女性乳腺癌的发病和死亡现况—全国32 个肿瘤登记点2003-2007 年资料分析报告[J].肿瘤,2012,32(6):435-439.
[5]
刘文,赵建国,张应天,等.腋窝淋巴结转移对浸润性乳腺癌预后的影响[J].江汉大学学报(自然科学版), 2013,41(1): 88-90.
[6]
Levenson W.Biomarkers for early detection of breast cancer:what, when, and where? [J].Biochim Biophys Acta, 2007,1770(6):847-856.
[7]
Shin BK, Wang H, Hanash S.Proteomics approaches to uncover the repertoire of circulating biomarkers for breast cancer[J].J Mammary Gland Biol Neoplasia,2002,7(4):407-413.
[8]
Lu H, Goodell V, Disis ML.Humoral immunity directed against tumor-associated antigens as potential biomarkers for the early diagnosis of cancer [J].J Proteome Res, 2008, 7(4):1388-1394.
[9]
Tan HT, Low J, Lim SG, et al.Serum autoantibodies as biomarkers for early cancer detection[J].FEBS J, 2009,276(23):6880-6904.
[10]
Femandez Madrid F.Autoantibodies in breast cancer sera:candidate biomarkers and reporters of tumorigenesis [ J].Cancer Lett,2005,230(2):187-198.
[11]
Dhodapkar MV, Dhodapkar KM, Li Z.Role of chaperones and FcgammaR in immunogenic death[J].Curr Opin Immunol,2008,20(5):512-517.
[12]
Villanueva J, Shaffer DR, Philip J, et al.Differential exoprotease activities confer tumor-specific serum peptidome patterns [J].J Clin Invest,2006,116(1):271-284.
[1] 李洋, 蔡金玉, 党晓智, 常婉英, 巨艳, 高毅, 宋宏萍. 基于深度学习的乳腺超声应变弹性图像生成模型的应用研究[J/OL]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2024, 21(06): 563-570.
[2] 河北省抗癌协会乳腺癌专业委员会护理协作组. 乳腺癌中心静脉通路护理管理专家共识[J/OL]. 中华乳腺病杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 321-329.
[3] 刘晨鹭, 刘洁, 张帆, 严彩英, 陈倩, 陈双庆. 增强MRI 影像组学特征生境分析在预测乳腺癌HER-2 表达状态中的应用[J/OL]. 中华乳腺病杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 339-345.
[4] 张晓宇, 殷雨来, 张银旭. 阿帕替尼联合新辅助化疗对三阴性乳腺癌的疗效及预后分析[J/OL]. 中华乳腺病杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 346-352.
[5] 邱琳, 刘锦辉, 组木热提·吐尔洪, 马悦心, 冷晓玲. 超声影像组学对致密型乳腺背景中非肿块型乳腺癌的诊断价值[J/OL]. 中华乳腺病杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 353-360.
[6] 程燕妮, 樊菁, 肖瑶, 舒瑞, 明昊, 党晓智, 宋宏萍. 乳腺组织定位标记夹的应用与进展[J/OL]. 中华乳腺病杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 361-365.
[7] 涂盛楠, 胡芬, 张娟, 蔡海峰, 杨俊泉. 天然植物提取物在乳腺癌治疗中的应用[J/OL]. 中华乳腺病杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 366-370.
[8] 朱文婷, 顾鹏, 孙星. 非酒精性脂肪性肝病对乳腺癌发生发展及治疗的影响[J/OL]. 中华乳腺病杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 371-375.
[9] 周荷妹, 金杰, 叶建东, 夏之一, 王进进, 丁宁. 罕见成人肋骨郎格汉斯细胞组织细胞增生症被误诊为乳腺癌术后骨转移一例[J/OL]. 中华乳腺病杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 380-383.
[10] 葛睿, 陈飞, 李杰, 李娟娟, 陈涵. 多基因检测在早期乳腺癌辅助治疗中的应用价值[J/OL]. 中华乳腺病杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(05): 257-263.
[11] 高杰红, 黎平平, 齐婧, 代引海. ETFA和CD34在乳腺癌中的表达及与临床病理参数和预后的关系研究[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 64-67.
[12] 韩萌萌, 冯雪园, 马宁. 乳腺癌改良根治术后桡神经损伤1例[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 117-118.
[13] 张志兆, 王睿, 郜苹苹, 王成方, 王成, 齐晓伟. DNMT3B与乳腺癌预后的关系及其生物学机制[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 624-629.
[14] 王玲艳, 高春晖, 冯雪园, 崔鑫淼, 刘欢, 赵文明, 张金库. 循环肿瘤细胞在乳腺癌新辅助及术后辅助治疗中的应用[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 630-633.
[15] 赵林娟, 吕婕, 王文胜, 马德茂, 侯涛. 超声引导下染色剂标记切缘的梭柱型和圆柱型保乳区段切除术的效果研究[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 634-637.
阅读次数
全文


摘要