Log in

Relevant bibliographies by topics / Prognostic markers / Journal articles

Journal articles on the topic 'Prognostic markers'

To see the other types of publications on this topic, follow the link: Prognostic markers.

Author: Grafiati

Published: 4 June 2021

Last updated: 11 March 2023

Create a spot-on reference in APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard, and other styles

Select a source type:

Consult the top 50 journal articles for your research on the topic 'Prognostic markers.'

Next to every source in the list of references, there is an 'Add to bibliography' button. Press on it, and we will generate automatically the bibliographic reference to the chosen work in the citation style you need: APA, MLA, Harvard, Chicago, Vancouver, etc.

You can also download the full text of the academic publication as pdf and read online its abstract whenever available in the metadata.

Browse journal articles on a wide variety of disciplines and organise your bibliography correctly.

1

Kovaleva, Olga V., Madina A. Rashidova, Daria V. Samoilova, Polina A. Podlesnaya, Rasul M. Tabiev, Valeria V. Mochalnikova, and Alexei Gratchev. "CHID1 Is a Novel Prognostic Marker of Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer." International Journal of Molecular Sciences 22, no. 1 (January 5, 2021): 450. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijms22010450.

Full text

Abstract:

There is an urgent need for identification of new prognostic markers and therapeutic targets for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). In this study, we evaluated immune cells markers in 100 NSCLC specimens. Immunohistochemical analysis revealed no prognostic value for the markers studied, except CD163 and CD206. At the same time, macrophage markers iNOS and CHID1 were found to be expressed in tumor cells and associated with prognosis. We showed that high iNOS expression is a marker of favorable prognosis for squamous cell lung carcinoma (SCC), and NSCLC in general. Similarly, high CHID1 expression is a marker of good prognosis in adenocarcinoma and in NSCLC in general. Analysis of prognostic significance of a high CHID1/iNOS expression combination showed favorable prognosis with 20 months overall survival of patients from the low CHID1/iNOS expression group. For the first time, we demonstrated that CHID1 can be expressed by NSCLC cells and its high expression is a marker of good prognosis for adenocarcinoma and NSCLC in general. At the same time, high expression of iNOS in tumor cells is a marker of good prognosis in SCC. When used in combination, CHID1 and iNOS show a very good prognostic capacity for NSCLC. We suggest that in the case of lung cancer, tumor-associated macrophages are likely ineffective as a therapeutic target. At the same time, macrophage markers expressed by tumor cells may be considered as targets for anti-tumor therapy or, as in the case of CHID1, as potential anti-tumor agents.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

2

Taha, Anas, Stephanie Taha-Mehlitz, Stephanie Petzold, Sergey L. Achinovich, Dmitry Zinovkin, Bassey Enodien, Md Zahidul I. Pranjol, and Eldar A. Nadyrov. "Prognostic Value of Immunohistochemical Markers for Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer." Molecules 27, no. 3 (January 18, 2022): 596. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/molecules27030596.

Full text

Abstract:

The aim of this study is to reveal the potential roles of apoptosis markers (Bcl2 and p53), proliferation markers (Ki-67 and CyclD1), and the neuroendocrine marker Chromogranin A as markers for the radioresistance of rectal cancer. Statistically significant differences were found in the expression of p53, Ki-67, and Chromogranin A in groups of patients with and without a favorable prognosis after radiotherapy. The survival analysis revealed that the marker of neuroendocrine differentiation, Chromogranin A, also demonstrated a high prognostic significance, indicating a poor prognosis. Markers of proliferation and apoptosis had no prognostic value for patients who received preoperative radiotherapy. Higher Chromogranin A values were predictors of poor prognosis. The results obtained from studying the Chromogranin A expression suggest that the secretion of biologically active substances by neuroendocrine cells causes an increase in tumor aggressiveness.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

3

Elias, Jules M. "The Prognosis of Prognostic Markers. Quo Vadis?" Journal of Histotechnology 19, no. 1 (March 1996): 7–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1179/his.1996.19.1.7.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

4

Veryaskina, Yuliya Andreevna, Sergei Evgenievich Titov, Igor Borisovich Kovynev, Tatiana Ivanovna Pospelova, and Igor Fyodorovich Zhimulev. "Prognostic Markers of Myelodysplastic Syndromes." Medicina 56, no. 8 (July 27, 2020): 376. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/medicina56080376.

Full text

Abstract:

Myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) is a clonal disease characterized by multilineage dysplasia, peripheral blood cytopenias, and a high risk of transformation to acute myeloid leukemia. In theory, from clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential to hematologic malignancies, there is a complex interplay between genetic and epigenetic factors, including miRNA. In practice, karyotype analysis assigns patients to different prognostic groups, and mutations are often associated with a particular disease phenotype. Among myeloproliferative disorders, secondary MDS is a group of special entities with a typical spectrum of genetic mutations and cytogenetic rearrangements resembling those in de novo MDS. This overview analyzes the present prognostic systems of MDS and the most recent efforts in the search for genetic and epigenetic markers for the diagnosis and prognosis of MDS.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

5

Chen, LangXiong, XiaoSong He, ShiJiang Yi, GuanCheng Liu, Yi Liu, and YueFu Ling. "Six Glycolysis-Related Genes as Prognostic Risk Markers Can Predict the Prognosis of Patients with Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma." BioMed Research International 2021 (February 10, 2021): 1–13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2021/8824195.

Full text

Abstract:

Objective. Head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) is one of the worst-prognosis malignant tumors. This study used bioinformatic analysis of the transcriptome sequencing data of HNSCC and the patients’ survival and clinical data to construct a prediction signature of glycolysis-related genes as the prognostic risk markers. Methods. Gene expression profile data about HNSCC tissues ( n = 498 ) and normal tissues in the head and neck ( n = 44 ) were got from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA), as well as patients’ survival and clinical data. Then, we obtained core genes; their expression in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma tissues is significantly different from that in normal head and neck tissues. The predicted glycolysis-related genes are screened through univariate Cox regression analysis, and then, the prognostic risk markers were constructed through further correction of multivariate Cox regression analysis. The Kaplan-Meier curve and receiver operating characteristic curve are used to analyze the potential value of these risk markers in diagnosis and prognosis. We also evaluated that the glycolysis-related prognostic risk markers composed of 6 oncogenes are correlated with clinical features, such as age, gender, grade, and clinical stage of the tumor, by univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses. Results. Differentially expressed glycolytic genes in HNSCC tissues and normal head and neck tissues were screened from TCGA databases using the bioinformatic method. We confirmed a set of six glycolytic genes that were significantly associated with OS in the test series. According to our analysis, the prognostic risk markers composed of HPRT1, STC2, PLCB3, GPR87, PYGL, and SLC5A12 may be an independent risk factor for the prognosis of HNSCC. Conclusions. Through this analysis, we constructed new prognostic risk markers related to glycolysis as a prognostic risk marker for patients with HNSCC and provided new ideas and molecular targets for the research and individualized treatment of HNSCC.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

6

Alieva, A. M., A. V. Sozykin, N. V. Teplova, E. V. Reznik, D. V. Izimarieva, N. A. Novikova, I. V. Lozovsky, Е. E. Averin, R. K. Valiev, and I. G. Nikitin. "Tenascin-C as a cardiovascular marker." Russian Journal of Cardiology 27, no. 8 (September 3, 2022): 5150. http://dx.doi.org/10.15829/1560-4071-2022-5150.

Full text

Abstract:

Novel biological markers, such as fibrosis marker galectin-3, peptide hormone adrenomedullin, soluble ST2, chemokine CX3CL1, surrogate marker of vasopressin, and others, are every year one step closer to being introduced into health practice. Over the past decades, significant progress has been made in the study of cardiovascular biomarkers. A key moment was the introduction of deter mining the concentration of natriuretic peptides used as markers for the diagnostic and prognostic evaluation of patients with heart failure. Currently, in order to search for novel markers for early diagnosis and risk stratification, studies have been conducted on the analysis of promising inflammatory marker tenascin-C (TNC) in cardiovascular patients. Data have been obtained that allow us to consider TNC as a tool for risk stratification and assessment of cardiovascular disease prognosis. The combination of TNC with other biological markers, in particular brain natriuretic peptide, may improve prognostic power. Nevertheless, serial testing to assess the prognosis and effectiveness of ongoing treatment, including in the conditions of a multimarker model, requires further research.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

7

Labussiere, Marianne, Xiao-Wei Wang, Ahmed Idbaih, François Ducray, and Marc Sanson. "Prognostic markers in gliomas." Future Oncology 6, no. 5 (May 2010): 733–39. http://dx.doi.org/10.2217/fon.10.25.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

8

Perkins, Geraldine, Pierre Laurent-Puig, and Julien Taieb. "Ampullary carcinoma prognostic markers." Oncotarget 10, no. 44 (July 16, 2019): 4509–10. http://dx.doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.27067.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

9

Bakhshi, Sameer, and Venkatraman Radhakrishnan. "Prognostic markers in osteosarcoma." Expert Review of Anticancer Therapy 10, no. 2 (February 2010): 271–87. http://dx.doi.org/10.1586/era.09.186.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

10

Ross, Jeffrey S., Christine E. Sheehan, Hugh AG Fisher, Ronald A. Kauffman, Eric M. Dolen, and Bhaskar VS Kallakury. "Prognostic markers inprostate cancer." Expert Review of Molecular Diagnostics 2, no. 2 (March 2002): 129–42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1586/14737159.2.2.129.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

11

Ilhan, A., L. Wagner, M. Maj, A. Woehrer, T. Czech, H. Heinzl, C. Marosi, et al. "-Omics and Prognostic Markers." Neuro-Oncology 12, Supplement 4 (October 21, 2010): iv61—iv68. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/neuonc/noq116.s8.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

12

Moriera, F., K. So, P. Gould, D. Kamnasaran, R. L. Jensen, I. Hussain, D. H. Gutmann, et al. "-OMICS AND PROGNOSTIC MARKERS." Neuro-Oncology 13, suppl 3 (October 21, 2011): iii76—iii84. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/neuonc/nor167.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

13

Clarke, Martha R., Robert J. Weyant, Charles G. Watson, and Sally E. Carty. "Prognostic markers in pheochromocytoma." Human Pathology 29, no. 5 (May 1998): 522–26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0046-8177(98)90070-3.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

14

Neidner, Kenneth H. "Analysis of prognostic markers." Clinics in Dermatology 6, no. 1 (January 1988): 116–22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0738-081x(88)90017-x.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

15

Goedert, James J. "Prognostic markers for AIDS." Annals of Epidemiology 1, no. 2 (December 1990): 129–39. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/1047-2797(90)90004-c.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

16

Conley, Barbara A., and Sheila E. Taube. "Prognostic and Predictive Markers in Cancer." Disease Markers 20, no. 2 (2004): 35–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2004/202031.

Full text

Abstract:

The elucidation of the human genome and advances in knowledge about molecular abnormalities, signaling pathways, influence of the local tissue milieu and the relevance of genetic polymorphisms offer hope of designing more effective, individualized cancer treatment plans. Although the scientific and medical literature is replete with reports of putative prognostic or predictive markers for cancer, few new diagnostics have been incorporated into routine clinical practice. Criteria are needed to a) identify markers that have the promise to be clinically useful; b) assess the best methodology for clinical evaluation of the markers in question and c) confirm or validate that using the marker adds useful information compared to using standard prognostic factors alone. This review presents a methodology for the clinical evaluation of putative prognostic and predictive markers in cancer, with considerations of pitfalls in the early evaluation, rationale for development and optimization of assay methodology, and examples of possible clinical trials for assessing the clinical utility of putative markers.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

17

Kaban, Kübra, Sarah M. Greiner, Samuel Holzmayer, Claudia Tandler, Sophie Meyer, Clemens Hinterleitner, Helmut R. Salih, Melanie Märklin, and Jonas S. Heitmann. "Immunoprofiling of 4-1BB Expression Predicts Outcome in Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL)." Diagnostics 11, no. 11 (November 4, 2021): 2041. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics11112041.

Full text

Abstract:

Recent success of novel therapies has improved treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) patients, but most of them still require several treatment regimes. To improve treatment choice, prognostic markers suitable for prediction of disease outcome are required. Several molecular/genetic markers have been established, but accessibility for the entirety of all patients is limited. We here evaluated the relevance of GITR/4-1BB as well as their ligands for the prognosis of CLL patients. Surface expression of GITR/GITRL and 4-1BB/4-1BBL was correlated with established prognostic markers. Next, we separated our patient population according to GITR/GITRL and 4-1BB/4-1BBL expression in groups with high/low expression levels and performed Kaplan-Meier analyses. Interestingly, no correlation was observed with the defined prognostic markers. Whereas no significant difference between high and low expression of GITR, GITRL and 4-1BBL was observed, high 4-1BB levels on leukemic cells were associated with significantly shorter survival. Thereby we identify 4-1BB as prognostic marker for CLL.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

18

Li, Limin, Bing Ma, Fubin Liu, Chao Sheng, Yu Peng, Yating Qiao, Peng Wang, Kexin Chen, and Fangfang Song. "The Number of Positive Tumor Markers (NPTM) Achieves Higher Value in the Prognosis Prediction of Gastric Cancer." Disease Markers 2022 (November 28, 2022): 1–13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2022/5145918.

Full text

Abstract:

Purpose. The clinical application of combined tumor markers is still limited. We aim to explore the value of the combination of multiple tumor markers in gastric cancer (GC) prognosis. Methods. The prognostic significance was evaluated using Kaplan–Meier log-rank survival analysis and multivariable Cox regression analysis. The estimated area under the curve (AUC) was compared to evaluate the discriminatory ability of different indicators. A nomogram was constructed based on the results of multivariable cox regression, and its performance was evaluated by Harrell’s concordance index and calibration curve. Results. NPTM (number of positive tumor markers) displayed independent prognostic significance whether in the whole cohort or in patients with different stages. Patients with the all-negative tumor markers had a worse prognosis after postoperative chemotherapy in all cohort ( P = 0.023 ) or in age ≤60 subgroup ( P = 0.012 ), while patients with positive tumor markers had a better prognosis after postoperative chemotherapy in stage III ( P = 0.012 ). The AUC value of NPTM is higher than any individual tumor marker. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year AUC values of the CTNM (combination of NPTM and pTNM) increased by 5%, 4.8%, and 3.6%, respectively, compared with TNM staging system. The nomogram constructed including NPTM showed its high accuracy ( C − index = 0.706 ) versus TNM staging system ( C − index = 0.646 ) and CTNM ( C − index = 0.681 ). Conclusions. NPTM was an independent predictor of gastric cancer prognosis, showing more accurate prognostic performance than individual tumor markers. Especially its significance in guiding postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy regimens and predicting prognosis by combination with TNM staging system may have a better clinical application value.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

19

Lin, Yueh-Min, Mei-Ling Chen, Chia-Lo Chen, Chung-Min Yeh, and Wen-Wei Sung. "Overexpression of EIF5A2 Predicts Poor Prognosis in Patients with Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma." Diagnostics 10, no. 7 (June 27, 2020): 436. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics10070436.

Full text

Abstract:

Oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) is the most common epithelial malignancy affecting the oral cavity, and it is especially significant in Asian countries. Patients diagnosed with OSCC have an unfavorable prognosis and additional prognostic markers would help improve therapeutic strategies. We sought to investigate the association between eukaryotic translation initiation factor 5A2 (EIF5A2) and epithelial–mesenchymal transition (EMT) markers as well as the prognostic significance of EIF5A2 in OSCC. The expression of EIF5A2 and EMT markers was measured through the immunohistochemical staining of specimens from 272 patients with OSCC. In addition, the correlation between different clinicopathological factors and EIF5A2 expression was analyzed. The prognostic role of EIF5A2 was then analyzed via Kaplan–Meier analysis and Cox proportional hazard models. Among the 272 patients, high EIF5A2 expression was significantly associated with an advanced N value (p = 0.008). High tumor expression of EIF5A2 was prone to the expression of low E-cadherin and high beta-catenin (p = 0.046 and p = 0.020, respectively). Patients with high EIF5A2 expression had unfavorable five-year survival rates as compared with those with low expression (49.7% and 67.3%, respectively). The prognostic role of EIF5A2 was further confirmed through multivariate analysis (hazard ratio = 1.714, 95% confidence interval: 1.134–2.590, p = 0.011). High EIF5A2 expression is associated with an advanced N value and EMT markers and may serve as a marker for an unfavorable prognosis in patients with OSCC.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

20

Duffy, M. J. "Biochemical markers as prognostic indices in breast cancer." Clinical Chemistry 36, no. 2 (February 1, 1990): 188–91. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/clinchem/36.2.188.

Full text

Abstract:

Abstract 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.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

21

He, Yanxin, Haiping Song, Yanfang Jiang, and Wanhua Ren. "Identification of Immune-Related Prognostic Markers in Gastric Cancer." Journal of Healthcare Engineering 2022 (March 8, 2022): 1–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2022/7897274.

Full text

Abstract:

Gastric cancer (GC) is a malignant tumor with a high fatality rate. Poor prognosis is the main cause of death caused by GC. In this study, the gene expression difference between GC and the control group was analyzed. Differentially expressed genes (DEGs) related to immunity were screened for enrichment analysis. The differences in immune cell infiltration and immune function between GC and normal were identified. Cox regression analysis and survival analysis were used to determine the prognostic genes of GC in TCGA and GSE62254. The potential prognostic role of genes was further evaluated by risk score. Difference genes in GC were analyzed in TCGA. Candidate genes in TCGA and GSE62254 are analyzed, and prognostic genes are determined. The potential prognostic role of genes was further evaluated by risk score. The immune-related prognostic markers in GC were determined. FABP4, LBP, LCN1, CMA1, INHBA, ANGPTL1, ACKR1, GHR, and OGN may be used as markers for monitoring the prognosis of GC in the future.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

22

Montserrat, Emili. "New Prognostic Markers in CLL." Hematology 2006, no. 1 (January 1, 2006): 279–84. http://dx.doi.org/10.1182/asheducation-2006.1.279.

Full text

Abstract:

Abstract The individual prognosis of patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is extremely variable. Although clinical stages remain the basis for assessing prognosis in CLL, a number of biological markers, particularly serum markers, cytogenetic abnormalities, IgVH mutations, CD38 and ZAP-70 expression in leukemic cells offer important, independent prognostic information. Before being incorporated into daily practice, however, these markers require standardization and validation in large, prospective trials. Meanwhile, treatment of patients with CLL not included in clinical studies should be decided on the basis of classical NCI/CLL Working Group criteria. An important area of research in CLL prognostication is the identification of markers useful for predicting response to therapy and its duration. Among them, del(17p), reflecting P53 abnormalities, is particularly important. Also relevant is del(11q), which points to ATM defects. There is also some correlation between IgVH mutational status, ZAP-70 and CD38 expression and response to therapy and its duration, although these relationships need further investigation. Finally, there is increasing evidence that response to therapy, particularly in those cases in which minimal residual disease is eradicated, is associated with longer survival.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

23

Chua-on, Daraporn, Tanakorn Proungvitaya, Doungdean Tummanatsakun, Anchalee Techasen, Temduang Limpaiboon, Sittiruk Roytrakul, Sopit Wongkham, et al. "Apoptosis-Inducing Factor, Mitochondrion-Associated 3 (AIFM3) Protein Level in the Sera as a Prognostic Marker of Cholangiocarcinoma Patients." Biomolecules 10, no. 7 (July 10, 2020): 1021. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/biom10071021.

Full text

Abstract:

Prognosis of cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) patients is absolutely poor. Since improvement of prognosis and/or response to treatment by personalized and precision treatments requires earlier and precise diagnostic markers, discovery of prognostic markers attracts more attention. Apoptosis-inducing factor, mitochondrion-associated 3 (AIFM3) is highly expressed in several cancers including CCA. The present study investigated whether the serum AIFM3 level can be used as a potential marker for CCA prognosis. For this purpose, we first determined secretory protein nature of AIFM3 using bioinformatic tools. The results show that although AIFM3 lacks signal peptide, it can be secreted into plasma/serum via an unconventional pathway. Then, the AIFM3 levels in the sera of 141 CCA patients and 70 healthy controls (HC) were measured using a semi-quantitative dot blot assay. The results show that the AIFM3 level in the sera of CCA group was significantly higher than that of HC. When correlation between serum AIFM3 levels and the clinicopathological parameters of CCA patients were examined, serum AIFM3 levels correlated significantly with lymph node metastasis, age, and the patients’ overall survival (OS). Higher AIFM3 levels were significantly associated with shorter OS, and only AIFM3 was an independent prognostic marker for CCA. In conclusion, AIFM3 can be used as a prognostic marker for CCA.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

24

Romanenko, T. G., and O. M. Sulimenko. "Modern prognosis markers of preeclampsia." HEALTH OF WOMAN, no. 10(146) (December 30, 2019): 77–91. http://dx.doi.org/10.15574/hw.2019.146.77.

Full text

Abstract:

Hypertensive disorders during pregnancy are one of the leading causes of maternal and perinatal morbidity and mortality worldwide. According to WHO, severe preeclampsia complicates from 2 to 8% of all pregnancies and in the structure of direct causes of maternal mortality still occupies 2 place and is about 14%. Preeclampsia remains one of the main causes of infant morbidity (640–780‰) and perinatal mortality (18–30‰). The search for clinical diagnostic markers that would allow high precision and specificity to determine the onset time of preeclampsia. None of the markers known today are alone capable of reliably confirming the development of preeclampsia. The prognostic model is an alternative basis for clinical practice that allows for the prediction of results and for timely decision-making on how to improve them. The practical recommendations of the world’s major profile organizations on the use of prognostic models are reviewed. The position of the key profile organizations on the prediction of pre-eclampsia at the present stage and the involvement of prognostic models in this study are investigated. The data of the conducted researches on the use of biochemical markers and their combination in predicting the development of preeclampsia were collected. The most promising prognostic models using anamnestic, instrumental data and biochemical marker results have been studied. The predictive value and specificity of these models for determining the early and late manifestation of preeclampsia, as well as their possible introduction into clinical practice, are presented. Key words: preeclampsia, prognosis, pregnancy, maternal mortality, hypertension, biochemical markers.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

25

Zhu, Haitao, Xianmin Xiao, Shan Zheng, Yiping Shen, and Bai-Lin Wu. "Genetic Prognostic Markers in Neuroblastoma." American Chinese Journal of Medicine and Science 3, no. 3 (2010): 123. http://dx.doi.org/10.7156/v3i3p123.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

26

Sant'Anna, M. C., L. G. P. Giordano, K. K. M. C. Flaiban, E. E. Muller, and M. I. M. Martins. "Prognostic markers of canine pyometra." Arquivo Brasileiro de Medicina Veterinária e Zootecnia 66, no. 6 (December 2014): 1711–17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1678-6859.

Full text

Abstract:

The pyometra is a disease that affects middle age and elderly female dogs during diestrus. Hormonal, microbiological, biochemical and hematological aspects are well described. However, few studies have evaluated the role of each in the prognosis of canine pyometra. The aim of this study was to identify markers associated with clinical worsening of dogs with pyometra. We prospectively evaluated 80 dogs with pyometra treated surgically. Group 1 consisted of dogs that were discharged within 48 hours after surgery and Group 2 consisted of those who required prolonged hospitalization or died. The findings of hematological, biochemical and blood lactate levels were compared between groups and variables such as bacterial multidrug resistance, systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS), hyperlactatemia and increased creatinine were analyzed through the dispersion of frequencies between groups. Among the variables studied, the presence of SIRS and elevated serum creatinine >2.5mg/mL were effective in predicting the worsening of the disease and can be used as prognostic markers of canine pyometra.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

27

Alifirova, V. M., E. M. Kamenskikh, E. S. Koroleva, E. V. Kolokolova, and A. M. Petrakovich. "Prognostic markers of multiple sclerosis." Zhurnal nevrologii i psikhiatrii im. S.S. Korsakova 122, no. 2 (2022): 22. http://dx.doi.org/10.17116/jnevro202212202122.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

28

Tyrrell, Helen E. J., and David Kerr. "Prognostic markers for colorectal cancer." Oncotarget 9, no. 69 (September 4, 2018): 33060–61. http://dx.doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.26012.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

29

Gomatos, Ilias P., Xu Xiaodong, Paula Ghaneh, Christopher Halloran, Michael Raraty, Brian Lane, Robert Sutton, and John P. Neoptolemos. "Prognostic markers in acute pancreatitis." Expert Review of Molecular Diagnostics 14, no. 3 (March 21, 2014): 333–46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1586/14737159.2014.897608.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

30

Navarro, Samuel, Marta Piqueras, Eva Villamón, Yania Yáñez, Julia Balaguer, Adela Cañete, and Rosa Noguera. "New prognostic markers in neuroblastoma." Expert Opinion on Medical Diagnostics 6, no. 6 (July 11, 2012): 555–67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1517/17530059.2012.704018.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

31

Juopperi, T. A., D. Bienzle, D. C. Bernreuter, W. Vernau, M. A. Thrall, and P. M. McManus. "Prognostic Markers for Myeloid Neoplasms." Veterinary Pathology 48, no. 1 (December 7, 2010): 182–97. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0300985810389317.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

32

Volchkov, E. V., Yu V. Olshanskaya, and N. V. Myakova. "Prognostic markers of lymphoblastic lymphoma." Pediatric Hematology/Oncology and Immunopathology 19, no. 4 (December 22, 2020): 198–204. http://dx.doi.org/10.24287/1726-1708-2020-19-4-198-204.

Full text

Abstract:

Lymphoblastic lymphoma (LBL) is the second most common non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in childhood. According to modern concepts LBL and acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) are considered as manifestations of the same disease given the similar morphological substrate of the tumor – T and B lymphoblasts. The standard for the treatment of LBL is currently ALL-like riskadapted treatment protocols that allow achieving overall and event-free survival rates of 80–90%. The division into risk groups is based on the stage of the disease and the response to induction therapy. However, the problem of relapse/refractory course of the disease remains a serious problem due to the lack of sufficiently effective therapeutic options. Currently, there is a sufficient amount of clinical data that reliably shows that a number of molecular biological factors can be used to create a new system of into risk groups stratification of patients with LBL. This review focuses on the analysis of various factors that may be responsible for the prognosis of LBL in children.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

33

Vajtai, I., and Z. Varga. "Prognostic markers of pleomorphic xanthoastrocytoma." Histopathology 33, no. 4 (October 1998): 391. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2559.1998.00506.x.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

34

Green, L., Z. Rayter, C. Calder, and J. R. Fardon. "Prognostic markers in neoadjuvent chemotherapy." European Journal of Cancer 34 (September 1998): S107—S108. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0959-8049(98)80445-0.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

35

Burger, Jan A. "Fledgling prognostic markers in CLL." Blood 110, no. 12 (December 1, 2007): 3820–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1182/blood-2007-08-109413.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

36

Jensen, R. L., S. Abraham, N. Hu, R. L. Jensen, J. L. Boulay, S. Leu, S. Frank, et al. "LAB-OMICS AND PROGNOSTIC MARKERS." Neuro-Oncology 14, suppl 6 (October 1, 2012): vi91—vi100. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/neuonc/nos231.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

37

Malham, Gregory M., Beth J. Synek, Karen M. Holdaway, Raewyn J. Thomsen, Christopher E. Furneaux, and Bruce C. Baguley. "Meningiomas: Prognostic markers for recurrence." Clinical Neurology and Neurosurgery 99 (July 1997): S238. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0303-8467(97)82385-2.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

38

Leiser, Y., I. Abu-El Naaj, I. Vlodavsky, and M. Peled. "O50. Oral cancer prognostic markers." Oral Oncology 47 (July 2011): S45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.oraloncology.2011.06.161.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

39

Meyer, Olivier. "Prognostic markers for systemic sclerosis." Joint Bone Spine 73, no. 5 (October 2006): 490–94. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbspin.2006.01.022.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

40

Leith, Catherine P., and Cheryl L. Willman. "Prognostic markers in acute leukemia." Current Opinion in Hematology 3, no. 4 (1996): 329–34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00062752-199603040-00013.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

41

Ray, Katrina. "New prognostic markers for CRC." Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology 7, no. 4 (April 2010): 182. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nrclinonc.2010.29.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

42

Leyshon Griffiths, T. R., and David E. Neal. "Prognostic markers in bladder cancer." Current Opinion in Urology 6, no. 5 (September 1996): 267–71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00042307-199609000-00008.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

43

Moore, David A., J. Howard Pringle, and Gerald S. Saldanha. "Prognostic tissue markers in melanoma." Histopathology 60, no. 5 (August 22, 2011): 679–89. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2559.2011.03910.x.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

44

Sorajja, Paul, Kasia Hryniewicz, and Peter M. Eckman. "Prognostic Markers and Valve Therapy." JACC: CardioOncology 1, no. 2 (December 2019): 170–71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jaccao.2019.11.003.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

45

Jessup, J. Milburn, and Massimo Loda. "Prognostic markers in rectal carcinoma." Seminars in Surgical Oncology 15, no. 2 (September 1998): 131–40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1098-2388(199809)15:2<131::aid-ssu11>3.0.co;2-5.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

46

Vroblová, Vladimíra, Lukáš Smolej, Filip Vrbacký, Karolína Jankovičová, Monika Hrudková, Jaroslav Malý, and Jan Krejsek. "Biological Prognostic Markers in Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia." Acta Medica (Hradec Kralove, Czech Republic) 52, no. 1 (2009): 3–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.14712/18059694.2016.99.

Full text

Abstract:

Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is the most frequent leukemic disease of adults in the Western world. It is remarkable by an extraordinary heterogeneity of clinical course with overall survival ranging from several months to more than 15 years. Classical staging sytems by Rai and Binet, while readily available and useful for initial assessment of prognosis, are not able to determine individual patient’s ongoing clinical course of CLL at the time of diagnosis, especially in early stages. Therefore, newer biological prognostic parameters are currently being clinically evaluated. Mutational status of variable region of immunoglobulin heavy chain genes (IgVH), cytogenetic aberrations, and both intracellular ZAP- 70 and surface CD38 expression are recognized as parameters with established prognostic value. Molecules regulating the process of angiogenesis are also considered as promising markers. The purpose of this review is to summarize in detail the specific role of these prognostic factors in chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

47

Matsuguma, H., H. Suzuki, Y. Ishikawa, T. Kondo, R. Nakahara, Y. Kamiyama, K. Mori, T. Kodama, and S. Honjo. "Prognostic value of preoperative serum tumor markers, including CEA, Cyfra21–1, SCC, CA19–9, SCC, CA125, TPA, NSE, and SLX, in patients with completely resected pathological stage I non-small cell lung cancer." Journal of Clinical Oncology 25, no. 18_suppl (June 20, 2007): 7681. http://dx.doi.org/10.1200/jco.2007.25.18_suppl.7681.

Full text

Abstract:

7681 Background: Recent randomized control trials have shown a survival benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with stage II or more advanced NSCLC, while surgery alone is still the standard therapy for stage I patients. There is, however, a subgroup of patients among the stage I patients who have a poor prognosis, for whom adjuvant chemotherapy can be as effective as has been observed for the patients with more advanced disease. Preoperative serum CEA level has been reported to be an independent prognostic factor for stage I NSCLC. However, many other tumor markers have also been reported as prognostic indicators in different studies using different tumor markers. It is unknown which tumor marker is the most effective for selecting poor prognostic subgroup of patients with stage I NSCLC for which adjuvant chemotherapy can be applied. Methods: A total of 355 patients underwent complete resection, and were diagnosed as having stage I NSCLC from 1995 to 2003. Analyzed tumor markers included CEA, Cyfra21–1, SCC, CA19–9, SCC, CA125, TPA, NSE, and SLX. Cut-off values for each tumor marker are listed in the table . Clinicopathologic factors including age, gender, histology, vessel invasion, pleural invasion, and pathologic T indicator are also analyzed in the multivariate analysis. Results: Among the 355 patients, 211 patients were male, 249 had adenocarcinoma, 82 had squamous cell carcinoma, and 253 had pathologic T1 tumors. Percentages of elevated value for each tumor marker are listed in the table in combination with related survival data. Cox proportional hazard model demonstrated age, pleural invasion, histology, and CEA were significantly independent prognostic factors. Conclusions: CEA is thought to be the best tumor marker for selecting the poor prognostic subgroup of patients with resected stage I NSCLC because of its high percentage of abnormal value and high ability to differentiate prognostic subgroups. No significant financial relationships to disclose. [Table: see text]

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

48

Li, Huimin, Longxiang Xie, Qiang Wang, Yifang Dang, Xiaoxiao Sun, Lu Zhang, Yali Han, et al. "OSmfs: An Online Interactive Tool to Evaluate Prognostic Markers for Myxofibrosarcoma." Genes 11, no. 12 (December 19, 2020): 1523. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/genes11121523.

Full text

Abstract:

Myxofibrosarcoma is a complex genetic disease with poor prognosis. However, more effective biomarkers that forebode poor prognosis in Myxofibrosarcoma remain to be determined. Herein, utilizing gene expression profiling data and clinical follow-up data of Myxofibrosarcoma cases in three independent cohorts with a total of 128 Myxofibrosarcoma samples from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) and Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) databases, we constructed an easy-to-use web tool, named Online consensus Survival analysis for Myxofibrosarcoma (OSmfs) to analyze the prognostic value of certain genes. Through retrieving the database, users generate a Kaplan–Meier plot with log-rank test and hazard ratio (HR) to assess prognostic-related genes or discover novel Myxofibrosarcoma prognostic biomarkers. The effectiveness and availability of OSmfs were validated using genes in ever reports predicting the prognosis of Myxofibrosarcoma patients. Furthermore, utilizing the cox analysis data and transcriptome data establishing OSmfs, seven genes were selected and considered as more potentially prognostic biomarkers through overlapping and ROC analysis. In conclusion, OSmfs is a promising web tool to evaluate the prognostic potency and reliability of genes in Myxofibrosarcoma, which may significantly contribute to the enrichment of novelly potential prognostic biomarkers and therapeutic targets for Myxofibrosarcoma.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

49

Petekkaya, Hilbrahim, Sercan Aksoy, Gizem Gecmez, Emre Kulahcioglu, Alexis K. Okoh, Deniz Cagın Isler, Abdullah Fatih Demirci, Ugur Sahin, Erkan Dogan, and Kadri Altundag. "Inflammatory markers in early-stage breast cancer." Journal of Clinical Oncology 31, no. 15_suppl (May 20, 2013): e11537-e11537. http://dx.doi.org/10.1200/jco.2013.31.15_suppl.e11537.

Full text

Abstract:

e11537 Background: In a few number of studies a possible relationship between inflammatory markers and the prognosis, chemotherapy response and survival in breast cancer has been reported. The aim of this study is to point out the place of serum markers as a prognostic factor in early stage breast cancer. Methods: This study was conducted in Hacettepe University Cancer Institute. Patients operated and stage IA to III C for breast cancer between December 2009 and June 2012 were included the study. Before the any adjuvant therapy inflammation markers were studied. Results: A total of 704 patients were included in the study. The median age of the patients was 50 (25-92). 42,8% of the patients were premenopausal and 48,2% postmenopausal. The median follow up period for the whole study group was 22 months (3-287). We studied the CRP, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, B2 microglobulin, LDH, albumin, and ferritin studied and values for each marker were grouped as high and normal. There was no statistically significant difference in disease free survival and overall survival for each marker who had high and normal levels. Conclusions: We did not found any inflammatory markers as a prognostic value. However our follow up time is short and we should be wait for more mature data.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

50

Ivanov, Krasimir, Nikola Kolev, Anton Tonev, and Anton Tontchev. "Molecular prognostic markers in colorectal cancer." Journal of Clinical Oncology 30, no. 15_suppl (May 20, 2012): e21100-e21100. http://dx.doi.org/10.1200/jco.2012.30.15_suppl.e21100.

Full text

Abstract:

e21100 Background: Patient 5-year survival rate from colorectal cancer in the last few decades remains at 40 to 45 percent. Nearly one-half of all patients who undergo a potentially curative resection will relapse because of undetected metastasis. Overall survival rate remains poor which strongly suggests that the dissemination of these cells occurs early in the disease process there is a need of diagnostic methods which evaluate tumor aggressiveness. The p-53, MUC-2, Ki-67, VEGF, Bax, Bcl-2, Stat, MMP2 are markers, which could provide useful individual information about biological potential and prognosis. Methods: We evaluate the expression of those markers in group of 72 patients with colorectal carcinoma. We observed the relations between: 1) type of operation; 2) histological type; 3) clinical stage; 4) individual risk index (IRI), based on evaluated expression of tumor markers; 5) impact on survival rate. Results: Achieving 100% successful rate in our study, we statistically analyzed the data received from marker’s expression. We calculated an IRI for every patient, based on the data from imm3unohystochemical expression by already mentioned molecular markers and divided the patients in 3 groups. A Group A, formed by 28 (38%) patients, which are with low clinical stage and worse molecular prognosis. A Group B, formed by 20 (27%) of patients had low tumor aggression and III or IV clinical stage and Group C, formed by the other 26 (35%) of the patients where is a correlation between the molecular and clinical stage prognosis. We found significant differences in survival rate in Groups A and B, according to clinical stage and our proposed IRI. Conclusions: Multivariate analysis revealed that the IRI is independent prognostic factor for the tumor outcome. There were many evidences for the need of alteration of the surgical behavior in different stages according to biological nature of the tumor. Analysis of a combination of immunohistochemical molecular markers with the conventional diagnostic methods for colorectal cancer allows better prediction of the patients’ prognosis and more accurate and individualized therapeutic strategy. That could decrease the incidence of recurrence-rate and low the mortality rate of this society-significant disease.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

We offer discounts on all premium plans for authors whose works are included in thematic literature selections. Contact us to get a unique promo code!